"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
— George Mason, Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
Recently, a good friend sent me an e-mail based on this article found in Salisbury News. Snopes cannot debunk this article — at least as of posting time. It is worth a read. Please take a look and then read on, here:
I have long been aware that tyrannies disarm their citizens in order to make them more pliable. It is clear to me that Nazi Germany disarmed their citizens. I have long been ciurious how such a smart and productive people could be duped into electing Hitler as its leader and give up their Weimar Republic for Nazi Germany. In reallity Hitler and his followers used many of the same techniques that the left is using now – including class warfare.
A more relevant technique they used is to leverage or create crises to advance their agenda. We can see how the left does this today in almost any area of politics, but none is more egregious than using mass murders to condemn the weapon rather than the criminal. The latest is the murders in Newton, CT. Did you notice I did not say "Shootings? Is the word, "Murder" even used in the reporting?
Many talk show hosts I listen to speak again and again about statistics and personal stories showing that firearms in the hands of responsible citizens reduce murders. While we could talk about the majority of mass murders occuring with weapons other than guns, we even more need to focus on the value of firearms in every responsible citizens home. Why? What do you think the Second Amendment is about?
Is it about hunting? Or is it about self defense? If it is about hunting, perhaps Gov. Cuomo's emotional remarks had some merit. However, it is not. It is about the ability of the citizenrey to defend themselvs. Not just in their homes form criminals, not just from their government turning tyrannical (which it is), but also from foreign invaders.
Did you know that, in WW II, Japan decided not to invade the United States, at least in part, because they knew that our citizens were armed?
Oh, you say they did too attack Pearl Harbor? Why would Admiral Yamamoto be gutsy enough to attack PH and not the mainland? Distance? No. Hang on now – this brings focus to the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. His opponents have been attacked for daring to suggest his nomination is weak because he is not sympathetic with Israel. He may or may not be. However, his nomination is to dismantle the military. Oh, it is not dismantling; it only is cutting fat? Perhaps we still should be concerned:
Back to Pearl Harbor: Please take a look at this version of "A Little Gun History" from Rense.com. Skip down to the end. Now, answer me: Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor and not the mainland? Do you not think that armed citizens were a factor (albeit perhaps only one) in the decision not to invade?
If for no other reason, the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense should be suspect when Israel is against it and Iran if for it. Need you know more?
Why is that relevant? If our enemies see our leadership dismantling our military, then our militia, defined above by George Mason as us, may well be our last line of defense from foreign enemies — as well as domestic.
By the way, our Founders recognized the right to defend oneself as unalienable – that is, given by God. The Old Testament surely documents the laws related to self defense, notably in the 22nd chapter of Exodus. How many people know that self defense is advocated in the New Testament? People may think Christ is against self defense because of his healing of the servant of the high priest's right ear. Did you know that Jesus admonished his disciples to carry a sword just a few verses before that in Luke? Luke 22:36, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Jesus told them that the shirt on their back was of less value to them than a sword. That may explain why Peter was allowed, encouraged in the verse above, to have a sword in the garden. Jesus, at least in the book of Luke, did not admonish Peter, but he did heal the servant's ear. Why? Jesus knew that the servant was doing his job – and needed to keep peace to complete his mission.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
— Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787