I posted this in the "Firearm Politics & 2nd Amendment Issues" forum early this afternoon. No problem, not trying to call "Dupe!" or anything. As long as its being seen, that's all I want. I hope you won't mind, Purple, but I'm going to copy/paste my own comments about it here from
my earlier thread:
The opening line of this blog-post says, "For widespread distribution," but I'm not positive whether the post originates at the blog and they have authority to give permission to repost it in its entirety, or if it's a repost on their blog. I explained to say that the whole piece should definitely be read by any and all gun owners, but I'm only going to excerpt a couple or three paragraphs here. So, with that.....
Why is this essay titled Dear Mr. Security Agent, when it dwells mainly upon the media and coastal-dwelling urban liberals and their utopian belief in the benefits of new gun control laws in the United States? Mr. Security Agent will protest that he is no liberal, he is ex-military, he’s a cop, he’s a fed—he’s one of the good guys! He took the same oath to defend the Constitution that you did, Buster! He doesn’t need any lectures on defending the Constitution! So why single him out in this essay?
Why? Because liberal bliss-ninnies in San Francisco and Boston are not issued flash-bang grenades, battering rams, body armor, flex-cuffs by the gross, and MP-5 submachine guns. No, the dirty end of the confiscation job will fall upon the shoulders of sworn law enforcement officers and gold-badged federal law enforcement agents. The LEOs and the FLEAs. That’s you, Mr. Security Agent.
We really don’t want a problem with you, believe me. And there is no reason for us to have a problem, because we both can read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and neither of us requires a team of black-robed mystics to translate its plain English into Newspeak for improved comprehension. You and I both understand what “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means, without requiring five out of nine politically appointed Supremes to tell us that it does not mean what it very plainly states in black and white.
(Emphasis mine - Please read the whole post)
The bold text above is something that comes up often around here. The notion that 9 judges who were appointed to stand guard over usurpations to the Constitution on
any issue, guns or otherwise, are
the law simply by virtue of them
saying it, is 180° out of phase with what Article III of the U.S. Constitution delineates as their authorities and powers.
As we progress into the reinvigorated push by government to further usurp the Constitution in the form of highly restrictive
infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights, we need to either refocus, or expand our limited focus from the strategy of only communicating with our elected officials, to include LEOs and FLEAs, and educate them that they have the potential to be the biggest part of a successful defense of 2nd Amendment rights by
nullifying the usurping federal government's ability to enforce illegal, unconstitutional, and usurping laws, no matter
what the courts might have to say about it.
The Constitution stands as a God-inspired, impenetrable bulwark against all forms of tyranny, whether it come from the Executive, Legislative,
or Judiciary branches of government.
Blues
