Police Chief Says 2nd Amendment is a Danger to Public Safety

February 18, 2013 at 2:21 PM

America is a Constitutional Republic.  Say it with me…America is a Constitutional Republic.  American is not a Democracy.  Yes, we vote for things using a democratic process, but that’s where it ends.  The United States Constitution is written in such a way that when the United States was officially founded, it was founded as a Constitutional Republic.  If you are one of those people who does not understand the meaning between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy, you really should take the time to learn.

In short, America – as a Constitutional Republic – means that America “is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens.” [1; emphasis added]

Note that under a Constitutional Republic, the limits of the government are already set and no one has a right to set those limits aside by attempting to make government larger and larger, as the Left has been illegally doing for decades.  In some ways, this process began in earnest with FDR and continued from there, though it may have begun earlier.

Being a Constitutional Republic also means is that all laws that are created by elected officials must reflect the reality (as well as the built-in limitations) of the original founding documents.  Elected officials are not allowed to abrogate specific rights guaranteed under the Constitution, like the 2nd Amendment, as a for instance.  Yet, this is what those on the Left continually attempt to do.

So for instance, if we are to take Chicago Police Chief’s (Garry F. McCarthy) recent remarks seriously, he has stated that he believes the 2nd Amendment is a danger to public safety. [2]  The obvious implication of this statement is that the 2nd Amendment needs to be eradicated.

It is clear that not only is the police chief of Chicago an uneducated buffoon, (because he does not understand the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic), but he wants to exercise the power of demagoguery, over aspects of the Constitution, though no such power is given or supported in the U.S. Constitution.

While people have the freedom to express their opinion about the Constitution, America, or anything connected to it (including individual amendments), no one has the right to abrogate, diminish, restrict, or remove any of the amendments from the Constitution.  It really is as simple as that.

Someone’s opinion about the Constitution is simply their opinion.  Depending upon what they say about the Constitution means that they are either seen as someone who is educated or not.  Too many people don’t understand the truth about our country and unfortunately, many of these people are either elected officials or appointed to positions by elected officials.

We have seen this attitude in any numbers of elected officials, including Obama, who has noted how he would like to rewrite the Constitution.  Others in Congress have begun voicing their concerns about the need to limit free speech.  Our government currently abuses the 4th Amendment by forcing law-abiding citizens to submit to unreasonable searches and seizures while going through public airports (TSA).

This is demagoguery at the highest level and it is illegal.  Why should any amendment like the 2nd or the 1st Amendment be abridged, limited, curtailed, or eliminated?  In the case of the 1st Amendment, why can’t anyone be able to say what they want to say, whether or not it offends someone else?  Yet, certain members of Congress (and Obama himself) have intimated that those who are critical of Islam should have no part of the future.  If people can roundly criticize Christianity and use the very Name of Jesus as an epithet, then people can criticize and even condemn Islam as well.  The 1st Amendment guarantees it.

Once we begin messing around with the rights that are guaranteed to us under the Constitution, we are essentially attacking the Constitution itself.  Elected officials – including the president – are sworn to uphold and protect it.  Yet, it becomes clear that many do not do this.  Instead, they attack it.  This lack of support for the Constitution is often ignored, instead of dealing with it as it is – treason.

The 2nd Amendment is under attack by those on the Left who either do not know, or do not care about the fact that no one in government has the power to limit or set aside the 2nd Amendment (or the other amendments).  The fact remains that in spite of the truth that the 2nd Amendment itself clearly states that it “shall not be infringed,” our government has worked tirelessly over decades to restrict, limit, and even ban guns and ammo.

Things came to a head and with the Aurora, CO situation in which James Holmes shot up a movie theater filled with movie patrons.  It was not long afterward the Sandy Hook tragedy occurred and many in our government have been working overtime since then to establish greater restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens with respect to the 2nd Amendment.

We know that even if all the efforts to restrict or even abrogate the 2nd Amendment are overruled one way or another now, other attempts will continue.  It is imperative for the Left to limit and ultimately, remove our 2nd Amendment rights.  They know it and most of us know it too.

People say “Oh, come on! Why would anyone need to keep and bear arms against the government today?  That’s ludicrous!”  Is it?  I’d like to thank Greg Evensen who informs us of what is known as the Battle of Athens that occurred in 1946.  During that event, it was citizens (including many WWII Veterans) against a corrupt local government.  I’ll let you read about it and after you’ve done so, ask yourself what might the citizenry have accomplished if they had not had guns at the time? [3]  Remember, this was 1946, a mere sixty-seven (67) years ago.

Missouri is one of the latest states to attempt to infringe the 2nd Amendment.  They want to pass a law that would effectively make it mandatory to turn in or get rid of “assault” weapons, along with so-called high-capacity magazines within 90 days (and they would decide what constitutes both an “assault” weapon and a high- capacity magazine).  Failure to do so would result in being charged with a felony.  This is a direct infringement of the 2nd Amendment because the guns these Missouri legislators are referring to have already been in circulation and legal to purchase by law-abiding citizens.

I had the opportunity to send and receive several emails from one of the legislators there, who indicated that the introduction of any legislation was simply a means to start a “conversation.”  What I tried to explain was that having a conversation was one thing, but even if 100% of the people in the United States wanted to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution did not allow for it.  What’s the point of having a conversation if the efforts result in attempting to eliminate or curtail the 2nd Amendment, something expressly forbidden by the Constitution?  It is a complete waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

This legislator followed up with the fact that they simply wanted to allow people who had been victims of gun violence to have their say and the 1st Amendment guaranteed that right.  While I agreed that the 1st Amendment does guarantee the right to express an opinion about the 2nd Amendment (or any part of the Constitution), that conversation should not be allowed to translate into legislation that would in essence, attempt to override the 2nd Amendment.  If people want to talk about it, great.  It should not be used as any type of barometer to determine what – if anything – needs to be done about the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment is fine, thank you.

I also reminded the legislator that while people who had experienced gun violence at the hands of criminal should be heard from, it appeared that the same did not apply equally to those who had successfully used a gun to ward off the criminal element.  Neither Obama or any other legislator that I am aware of has specifically invited people who have used guns to save themselves or someone else to Capitol Hill.  This is because it does not agree with the Left’s agenda.

I also took the time to explain (as succinctly as possible) the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic to my legislator friend, who, I’m quite certain, did not know the difference.  This problem is all too frequent and it mainly exists on the Left side of the aisle.

No one in government is at liberty to limit, restrict, or fully remove those amendments that they are not happy with, or they believe need “tweaking.” Yet these efforts continue, as we see in our most recent example noted above of the police chief of Chicago, who believes that the 2nd Amendment creates a danger to society.  Does he really believe that if we had never had the right to bear arms, that guns would not exist and somehow criminals would not have them (as if they obey all the laws related to firearms and ammo on the books now)?

Further, does Police Chief McCarthy honestly believe – as he has stated – “that firearm owners who lobby their representatives, or who donate money to political campaigns, for pro-Second Amendment issues are guilty of corruption and of endangering public safety“? [4]  He can’t be that asinine, can he?

But just so we all understand what type of individual we are dealing with here, this is the same police chief “who previously blamed “government-sponsored racism” and Sarah Palin for Chicago’s gun-related violence, and who once said the Second Amendment itself was a threat to the nation’s security, according to a report by Red State — also said judges and lawmakers should focus more on public opinion polls when considering constitutional matters.” [5]  I guess he really is that asinine as many on the Left apparently strive to be.

Statements like his simply prove he is an uneducated loon.  The Constitution is not up for debate.  It is not to be weighed by public opinion polls.  The Constitution is the law of the land and if people don’t like it, they can leave for Russia, Iraq, Iran, or some other dictatorship that suits them, instead of remaining here with their treasonous ideas and contempt for the Constitution.
I appreciate what the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) stated in reply to McCarthy’s comments.  “Garry McCarthy’s understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation’s third-largest police department…What on earth would possess McCarthy to assert that constitutional rights should be meted out based on public opinion polls?” [6]
With respect to the question posed in the above quote (last sentence), the reality is that what “possessed” McCarthy is absolute stupidity and nothing else.  Obviously, the man knows nothing about the laws that founded this country and the rule of law that is supposed to oversee this land of ours.  It is tragic that we have individuals like this in positions of power and he is the chief of police in Chicago, no less.
There is this mindset among some that they can do what they want when it comes to the laws of the land.  Their skewed views create more problems in society than they solve.
Such is the case where groups of Muslim men in the UK are banding together to act as “enforcers” against those who are not part of Islam.  In areas they have designated as “no go” zones (if you are not a Muslim), they do what they can to inform people that because they have entered a Muslim “no go” zone, they must respect that and essentially, act like a Muslim while they are there.

I  previously wrote about the fact that I could see a time coming when Muslims will be used as “enforcers” for world governments.  Here is a video that shows groups of Muslims voluntarily patrolling areas of England doing their level best to intimidate people into conforming to Sharia Law.

As this situation grows, one can only wonder what the global elite (working in the shadows through numerous governments) will do in reaction.  Seems to me they will allow these groups to exist and give them free rein to see where it goes and the type of larger situation these patrols create.

If it begins to rear its head here in the states, the problem will likely come to a head quickly.  Who will want to be told by Muslims (or anyone) that they must act or dress a certain way because they are in “no go” zones artificially created by these same Muslims?

In effect though, this is what Minister Farakhan’s people have been doing for a while in areas of Chicago.  It’s certainly not as blatant as what their Muslim counterparts are doing in the UK and elsewhere, but it is happening.  Yet, crime continues unabated in Chicago, in spite of Farakhan and his workers.

Does the government of UK (and possibly the USA) want to create civil strife?  By doing nothing, it certainly seems to be the case.

Is it any wonder that our own government here in America wants to further restrict gun rights for law-abiding citizens?  They don’t want the 2nd Amendment to be a deterrent to Muslims who are working to create a Sharia-based law within the United States.  Take away our guns and we become easy targets for extremism of this kind.

With the help of individuals like Police Chief McCarthy, they hope that a society without guns in America will happen sooner than later.  What I’m not sure they’re anticipating is the resistance that may overtake this country because of the anti-gun efforts.

[1] http://www.conservapedia.com/Constitutional_Republic

[2] http://www.ihatethemedia.com/chicago-police-chief-second-amendment-is-a-danger-to-public-safety?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ihatethemedia+%28I+Hate+the+Media%29

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

[4] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/18/chicago-police-chief-second-amendment-supporters-g/#ixzz2LI1Xj6O2

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , , .

Jonah and the People of Nineveh One Foot in Heaven


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,213 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 724,327 hits

%d bloggers like this: