"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." –Justice Story
Path to the Kingdom of the Anti-Christ
Supreme Court’s Fiat Is Double-Speak
Before You Can Force The Kingdom On The People
You Have To Take Away Their Guns
...they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land. At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
Daniel 11:27-32
Gun-Grabbers At The Chicago Tribune
June 29, 2008
Gun-Grabbers At The Chicago Tribune
Kurt Nimmo / Infowars
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2983
...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. “There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not ‘brainwashed’ about gun ownership and had been well armed,” writes Theodore Haas, a survivor of Dachau. “Hitler’s thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun.” Our thugs are not very brave, either. But they don’t need to be when confronted with a brainwashed and increasingly disarmed public.
"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." –Justice Story
As the founders knew, and the Chicago Tribune is unable or unwilling to admit, the “militia,” 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 “right and duty” of citizens “to be at all times armed” as a deterrent to tyranny. However, since Jefferson’s 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 corporate 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 corporate combines owned by the very same globalist interests that have hijacked the government. It will be impossible for them to impose their transnational corporate plan — in other words, fascist plan, as Mussolini understood that corporatism and fascism are inseparable — on the whole of humanity so long as an appreciable minority remains armed. That’s what the corporate media jihad against the Constitution is all about — convincing you that “gun crime” 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.
The U.S. Supreme Court Has Upheld The Second Amendment (?)
June 26, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court Has Upheld The Second Amendment
By Cutting Edge Weekly Newsletter
http://cuttingedge.org/newsletters/index.html
NEWS BRIEF: "Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns," Yahoo News, June 26, 2008 "WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact." Liberals had long argued that the language of the Second Amendment only allows individuals to own guns if they are part of a standing militia! Our equivalent to a militia would probably be the National Guard, even though that force has been Federalized. While this ruling is very gratifying, we should not think that our right to own guns is now forever safe from government intrusion, for two powerful reasons:
1) The American Government will soon recognize that United Nations laws and treaties supersede the laws and treaties of individual nations -- including the United States. Therefore, the time will soon be upon us when our guns will be taken away by U.N. mandate.
2) The next planned terrorist attack will be used as the excuse by which either the President or the FEMA chief will announce that our entire current government is immediately dissolved, including the Constitution!
That is the Illuminati Plan for all nations whose citizens are now electing their leaders. Once the World War III designed to produce the false Christ gets underway, planned terror attacks will occur all over the world. In each nation, the ruler will announce that, until the forces of terror are vanquished, the present government must be abolished. When Antichrist arises, there will be no freely elected government in existence; all free governments will have been overthrown and replaced by an absolute dictatorship. Our Founding Fathers recognized that no dictatorship could take hold as long as the individual citizens were guaranteed a right to own as many guns as he wanted.
The Gun-Rights Fight Isn’t Over
June 27, 2008
The Gun-Rights Fight Isn’t Over
By Brian Doherty / L.A. Times
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2936
L.A. Times Opinion - The Supreme Court’s decision in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case settles a long, heated debate, finding the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own weapons for self-defense — not merely a right related to membership in a “well-regulated militia.” But the ruling doesn’t end the struggle over gun control, nor does it mean gun regulations have been eliminated. The court lists a number of laws the decision does not affect, including concealed-weapon prohibitions and “long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Still, even though the decision didn’t ban gun control outright, it did make a strong statement about our right to self-defense and safety. The city of Washington claimed its gun ban helped protect citizens. But the facts show how foolish it is to rely on gun control for safety. Washington’s per-capita murder rate has exceeded the rate in 1976 (when the ban passed) every year but one since then. For 10 of the last 30 years, its murder rate was more than twice as high as in ‘76. The ugliest aspect of D.C.’s law was its implication that your life is not worth protecting — given that police cannot, and don’t promise to, protect you in every life-threatening situation. Like other epochal Supreme Court decisions, Heller will give rise to a protracted legal and public-policy debate.
Leading gun-control advocates, such as the Brady Center, are already spinning Heller as a victory: They claim the gun-rights lobby’s strength is based on stoking the public’s slippery-slope fears that any gun regulation is a forerunner to a total ban. With that ban now impossible, gun-control advocates believe they’ll have more ability to restrict sales, possession and carrying in ways short of prohibition. Gun-rights advocates, for their part, are expected to use this decision to challenge Chicago’s handgun ban next, attacking another important question: Does the 2nd Amendment apply to state and local or only federal laws? The right at issue — an ancient right, preserved but not created by the 2nd Amendment — is that of self-defense. The gun-control debate will continue, but it is a blessing that the court has refused to deny us the means of protecting our homes and families.
Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Second Amendment (?)
June 27, 2008
Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Second Amendment
By Warren Mass
http://www.jbs.org/node/8536
In what is sure to become regarded as a landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia correctly observed that the individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. In an almost incredulous dissent that he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority ''would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Stevens claimed that such evidence "is nowhere to be found." (Hint: the Second Amendment says, without qualification, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.")
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent that displayed similar disregard for the history (think Lexington and Concord) that impelled the authors of the Constitution to define this right, stating: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." (If Breyer cannot read the constitution he should at least look at the facts, i.e. the city of Washington D.C. itself.) Also dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. Justice Scalia, in a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns." Among the "tools" left to the District was the authority to mandate gun registration. Anyone who thinks that being forced to register firearms does not eventually lead to firearms confiscation (certainly an infringement) needs to read the history of Germany's firearms registration during the Weimar Republic, and the subsequent confiscation of firearms by the Hitler regime.
In the Heller opinion, the majority stated: The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The ruling also correctly observes, concerning the right defined in the Second Amendment: "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right."
Other language in the ruling offers a refreshing recognition about the origin of rights, such as: …we find that [the words of the Second Amendment] guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." However, a little while later, the opinion contradicts itself by stating that the amendment conferred a right: "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
Yet another statement in the opinion offers perhaps the best justification of all as to why the right to keep and bear arms exists: "There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be 'necessary to the security of a free state.' ...when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny." If only our courts would keep that last point consistently in mind! Other excellent points made in the opinion include: 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 Anti-federalist rhetoric. …the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.
Another encouraging statement in the opinion is: "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad." And, the conclusion, taken at its word, is also cause for optimism: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." In the end, the Court ruled: "We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals." While the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, cleared up some common legal misconceptions about the Second Amendment, it misses the mark on other points. One disturbing statement in the majority opinion is: "We therefore read [United States v.] Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." (That is added by the Injustices' anti-constitutional thought and double-speak to mean: we cannot get away with ignoring, banning, or removing the second amendment so we will regulate it to the point it is useless. If you can keep and bear arms but have to have your gun locked away it does not help). One would think that, as clearly as the majority appeared to understand the history of the Second Amendment, they would see that the amendment makes no distinction whatsoever regarding types of arms.
The opinion does correctly observe that "For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens." With the federal government's continual application of the Bill of Rights to the States, however, why exclude the Second Amendment? Strict constitutional constructionists would probably concede the right of the states to regulate arms, if the federal government would only mind its own business in all other matters, but that is a moot point. With state and local government often now reduced to pawns of Washington, the Second Amendment must be maintained at all levels.
Finally, when Justice Scalia said that the Constitution does not permit ''the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," he did not go nearly far enough. Because the Second Amendment was written not so much to protect the home against robbers (though that is certainly a welcome added bonus), but to protect the citizenry against tyrannical governments (such as that headed by George IlI), that would rob them of something even more valuable than their material possessions: their liberty! The Court's majority opinion alluded to this fact in several places, as when it stated: "...when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny." But by leaving undisturbed laws that continue to regulate when, where, how, what type, and to whom the right to keep and bear arms is applicable, the Court failed to defend in practice what it lauded in principle.
Its decision included much sound, constitutional thinking regarding the Second Amendment that could serve as excellent precedent for future courts. However, it also allowed too many loopholes, such as leaving the authority to require gun registration untouched. Only then will an activist judicial system be stopped from legislating from the bench that the God-given right to self defense is not some government-granted privilege that may be revoked whenever the government deems it necessary. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Conclusion
In order for the kingdom of the Anti-Christ to rise, individual freedoms will not be permitted. The kingdom of the anti-Christ is the global community which will play by the rules of the United Nations. Americans will lose their freedoms and Constitution. However, at this point a majority of Americans are still wise to the global elitist's plans. American rights will be taken by stealth and over a longer span of time. When the time is ripe, anyone not in agreement with and "tolerant" of the global communities rules and laws will be deemed mentally unfit. Therefore, according to law (which the Supreme Court still upholds with this "victorious ruling"), any "mentally ill" person will not be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense. The Supreme Court has only quieted-down those Americans who believe they should be allowed to defend themselves with any weapon they choose, even defending themselves from a government who has been hijacked by global fascists. When the time is right, laws will simply be made to deem these people insane and therefore unfit to carry gun and defend themselves.
And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
Daniel 11:21-24
