RSS

A Black Woman’s Perspective on Gun Control

01 Mar

English: Clockwise start at the top left: Gloc...

Clockwise from top left: Glock G22, Glock G21, Kimber Custom Raptor, Dan Wesson Commander, Ruger sp101, Ruger Blackhawk .357, Sig Sauer P220 Combat. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This video is about two months old.  I just saw it.  It’s worth your time.

video    00:03:43

 
26 Comments

Posted by on March 1, 2013 in 2nd Amendment, Video

 

Tags: , , ,

26 responses to “A Black Woman’s Perspective on Gun Control

  1. Gary Russell

    March 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    Another excellent post, well worth the time to watch. Wait, was she a “constitutionalist? A “sovereign Citizen? Some kind of crazy fanatic??? NOPE. Normal, sane American.

    Thank you Alfred!

     
  2. NgoneA

    March 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM

    Indeed we have been and now are faced with a question,

    “If our Ancestors had been armed, would we have been enslaved?”

    Either way we may choose to answer that question, today if we do not want our children and grandchildren to be reintroduced to chattle slavery, we would be wise to support the Cons-titution
    in all it’s hypocracy and particularly, the 2nd amendment.. I too have watched and listened to discussions where an element in this society calmly sits as discusses the possibilty of returning some to slavery.

    BHO was S-elected into the White Peoples House for one reason, to acomplish what no “white man” could get away with, think on this deeply, this statement is not meant to be racist, I’m not zenophobic, it’s just the facts, you have “The Nation” and “the others” defined as races. When we are all considered Americans, then the statement won’t be necessary. Look what the Nobel Peace Prize warmonger President is doing to Africa sending military to 37 different nations right now with Africom under the pretense as usual of humanitarion intervention and or the bogus war on terrorism, which is really a Neo Colonial agenda for control of resources. Yes, at 65 yrs old and never owning a gun before now, I support the 2nd Amendement, the right to bear arms and accept the repsonsibility to defend against a corrupt and deceptive so called defacto facist police state Gov. for the sake of my grand children and great grandchildren. I will be a the shooting range soon.

     
  3. Anon4fun

    March 1, 2013 at 2:05 PM

    2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    The express purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the federal government in order to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”. The express purpose of the 2nd Amendment in particular is “the security of a free state” (of the Union).

    Putting these two elements together, the 2nd Amendment is about preventing the federal government from violating the security of a free state by misconstruing or abusing its own powers (at the expense of the state’s powers, as derived from its people).

    Since the several states, consisting of the people of the states, were intended to be sovereign with respect to the federal government, a “misconstruction or abuse” of power by the federal government with an object of violating “the security of a free state” would qualify as a revolutionary act. That is, an act significantly contributing to revolution.

    Revolution. A complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it. (Black’s 6th)

    Supporting this view is Article 3 of the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Since treason is only against the states, it follows that revolution, its large scale equivalent, is likewise.

    So the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent revolution. Specifically, revolution against the states by the federal government, which was intended to be subject to them.

     
    • Sparky

      March 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

      Af4f
      @ >Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,

      Based on a comment from you quite a while back about treason,let’s presume for the sake of a point,ONLY, that all the people from two states move into other states. How then, in an event like that, is it possible to even consider treason “against them” (2 states with no population) when you say that treason can only be against “STATES & not PEOPLE? “

       
    • Yartap

      March 1, 2013 at 10:20 PM

      Anon4fun, you have put forth a very interesting point or theory about the 2nd Amendment’s prevention of a “Federal Revolution” against the People. But, when you said, “The express purpose of the 2nd Amendment in particular is “the security of a free state” (of the Union).” I have to disagree. I believe that you do understand the main purpose of the Amendment (stopping tyranny), but respectfully your expressed understanding is a miss. The Amendment itself states that a “well regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state” and not the 2nd Amendment. That’s what it says, Right?

      So, why do I say this? We must look at Congress’s Constitutional Powers for the answer. Please note some of Congress’s listed powers……

      Section 8. “The Congress shall have Power….

      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
      To provide for calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for GOVERNING such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

      If you closely read the Constitution and understand, the Federal Government has complete control and authority over the states’ militias. It is Congress that regulates and disciplines the militia by law! If a State calls forth its militia, it will be at the approval of the Federal Government for the purpose of “War.” Look at Congress’s power in Section 10.

      Section 10. “ No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,…..
      engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

      Do you understand the flavor of Section 10’s meaning. A state has to get Congress’s permission to engage in War. In order for the state to “War” against the Federal Government, the Officers and troops of a state’s “National Guard” will have to make a big decision who to server. By Constitutional law, they will and must serve the national government. It says so in the Constitution.

      You must remember that, it is the duty of the national Federal Government to provide security for all the free states. This is why it is stated within the 2nd Amendment as a true statement or preamble. Or in other words, the 2nd Amendment states the fact that the national government by Constitutional Law has control over a state’s militia. How am I going to fight the federal and state governments, if I do not have the right to bear arms to stop both’s treason and tyranny committed against me? My 2nd Amendment Rights allow me the right of protection against them.

       
      • James Michael

        March 9, 2013 at 8:13 PM

        Any government officer breaching their sworn or affirmed oath, is in fact treason, as it is warring against the constitution and trying to pervert her Supreme Law and is punishable by death under Title 18 section 2381 Capital Felony Treason. I suggest some study of American Jurisprudence (The Conscience of the law) Volume 16 sections 1-300 under constitutional law, for the proper understanding of this. It also shows very factually, the perversion in the courts and the executive as the judiciary uses them as plain and simple robbers to obey their dictates. We the People created the Federal and State governments. We the People control it all. No consent individually, no obligation to obey their treasonous orders made without ANY authority. This so called government is in treason, every congress wo/man and senator and every supreme court judge that voted for and/or upheld the patriot act and the NDAA are traitors plain and simple, and it is easily provable. Obama is a traitor and a murderer, plain and simple. Sorry but the facts are the facts and the truth doesn’t change just because some people refuse to see it. A citizen is defined by the Supreme Court in Luria V. U.S. 219 US 9, A member of a political society owing a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection both being reciprocal “obligations” one in consideration of the other. Every single State Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have stated for 200 years the government has “NO” duty to protect anyone, and cannot be held liable for not doing so!! No duty to protect, no duty of allegiance, no citizens, no state and no united states citizens either. Lets the fact speak what they tell. I have no duty to this government who has proven itself to be a treasonous and murderous regime. Their actions brought this on them not mine. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the trees standing in front of the forest folks. Peace!

         
    • Snapper

      March 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM

      A4F
      I believe this information you have graciously shared is going to be what it takes to put things in order.

       
  4. Sparky

    March 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

    She said,”our forefathers.” hmmmm. sem can explain, I’m sure. I do need to understand this,”our forefathers.”

     
    • Yartap

      March 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM

      “Forefathers:” Those who have come before you, that you are adjoined as a member of a family. “Founding Fathers:” Those who have come before you, that you are/have adjoined as a member of an organization. Sparky, I believe, it has nothing to do with sex, race or color or national origin.

       
      • Sparky

        March 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

        Yartap,
        @ > You say, “I believe, it has nothing to do with sex, race or color or national origin.”

        And I do not mean to sound like a racist but I think that ALL the people that were the forefathers of our or this “original” Nation” were of the “White Race.” Also,A Nation means a “Race of people. However, the 14th 39th CONgressional amendment changed this original meaning & intent through “what is called & by “some” Appropriate legislation.The Posterity aka offspring, originally meant our children,grandchildren,great grandchildren,& so on. I KNOW I can be corrected by “many” others but that is due to appropriate legislation too & by the many others not understanding who the appropriate legislation changes applied to.

         
  5. Anon4fun

    March 2, 2013 at 1:34 AM

    Sparky:

    A state would not exist without its people. A state is its people, though in a certain capacity. The same capacity of the people in which they elect representatives to write laws. No one in their individual capacity sends a representative to the legislature, so treason is not against an individual.

    Yartap:

    There are two necessities in the 2nd Amendment: 1) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and 2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed is necessary to a well regulated militia.

    The second necessity is implied by the grammar of the sentence. Though the conjunction “because” is not in the text, its function is there logically. The sentence could have read, without changing its meaning:

    “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 purpose of 1) a well regulated militia, 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed, and, therefore, 3) the 2nd Amendment itself is the security of a free state.

    Regarding Section 8, the federal government having the power to call forth the militia is not inconsistent with the states have the same power. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution. So the states having their own militia to check the federal militia makes perfect sense here.

    Regarding Section 10, the “unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay” exception allowing the states to call their own militias would clearly apply when the federal government is overstepping its bounds and threatening the security of a free state through overt military means or in some other manner of invasion or imminent danger.

    You said: “You must remember that, it is the duty of the national Federal Government to provide security for all the free states.”

    Since the Bill of Rights is there to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted the federal government, it applies to circumstance where the federal government is not doing its duty.

     
    • Sparky

      March 2, 2013 at 6:10 PM

      Anon4fun

      In the Clown and Cop Brawl thread,you say in pertinent part: >”…since there is no such thing as treason against We the People.” AND you, Anon4fun, say,> “I already quoted from the Constitution as to how treason is only against the States. For example: waging war against them, endeavoring to abolish them…”

      Now,Anon,if there is no such thing as treason against We the People as you say,and as you continue to say treason is only against the States,what am I misunderstanding,when you say above,on March 2, 2013 at 1:34 AM, >A state would not exist without its people. A state is its people, though in a certain capacity. The same capacity of the people in which they elect representatives to write laws. No one in their individual capacity sends a representative to the legislature, so treason is not against an individual.”

      I understand,I think,that treason is not against an “individual” but you also say,”there is no such thing as treason against We the People. < This is what I am not understanding. In fact,what you,Anon-4 fun say,seems to be a contradiction. However, I do not expect you to respond to this post from me.You must admit some comments are not worthy of response.

       
  6. Anon4fun

    March 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM

    Yartap: “How am I going to fight the federal and state governments, if I do not have the right to bear arms to stop both’s treason and tyranny committed against me? My 2nd Amendment Rights allow me the right of protection against them.”

    It was getting late last night when I answered, so I missed this part.

    There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment or Bill of Rights about you personally stopping treason or tyranny. That’s an invention of anarchist propaganda to encourage shooting at police and similar forms of civil disintegration. The 2nd Amendment is about your state’s militia stopping the federal government’s “misconstruction or abuse” of its powers against the security of your free state. This is why the federal government shall not infringe the people’s right of arms. You are expected to show up with those arms when called by the state militia to defend the security of your free state against a misconstruing or abusing federal government.

    If your state government wanted to disarm you, the 2nd Amendment, by itself, would do nothing to prevent it. Not before the 14th Amendment did state (maybe only “this state”) governments have to abide by the restrictions in the Bill of Rights.

     
    • Yartap

      March 4, 2013 at 10:45 PM

      Anon4fun,

      I respectfully disagree. Placing my federal or state government back in its place is not ANARCHY on my part. When my state or federal government commits tyranny or treasons – that is anarchy against ME, my family, my Constitution and my government.

      Please look up Section 10 of the Constitution again. It tells you that only Congress can give the militia approval for “WAR.” Read in the Constitution about how Congress can only give TWO years of funding for military ventures. But why only two year? The Founders did not want standing armies or ground troops, thus the militia which Congress controlled for the safety of the republic and states.

      Next please look up the true story of the “Battle of Athens,” one of the best stories about the 2nd Amendment close to our time. Alfred featured the story, which had locals fight against its county and state authorities (not Federal).

       
      • Snapper

        March 5, 2013 at 6:44 AM

        Yartap
        You say to Anon4fun,>Please look up Section 10 of the Constitution again. It tells you that only Congress can give the militia approval …….”

        Militia?? What happened to the “National Guard?” See your comment in the 2nd amendment thread. Which is it,Militia,National Guard or both?

         
    • James Michael

      March 10, 2013 at 4:34 AM

      The is about the states militia which in missouri is defined as every able bodied male “citizen” between the age of 17 and 45. There are hundreds of court cites through the decades that anyone has the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop a badged criminal falsely arresting you whom is not complying fully with the dictates of the constitution. From Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition Police power. An authority conferred by the American constitutional system in the Tenth Amendment, U.S. Const., upon the individual states, and, in turn, delegated to local governments, through which they are enabled to establish a special department of police; adopt such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and crime, and secure generally
      the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of its citizens by preserving the public order, preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens, and insuring to each an uninterrupted enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws.
      The power of the State to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health, and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government
      to promote order, safety, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government. Marshall v. Kansas City, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 877, 883.
      The main and biggest words in that definition are: “The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due process” and “within constitutional limits.” Is doing a go around of the constitution and murdering citizens (one of them a child when they have no duty to protect (according to the traitors in the black robes)) breaching their sworn or affirmed constitutional limits? How many of “THEIR” limits have they breached already openly blatantly and with obvious and open treason upon We the People in their war to destroy the U.S. for A.. America is NOT a democracy it is a constitutional republic and in breaching that constitution or frauding the people and putting a fake one in place to trick us while they created a totally different incorporated business called UNITED STATES is fraud and treason by sedition, and is easily provable by their own actions, papers and also their debasement of our money per the Sherman coinage act is also punishable by death. All you have to do to prove their treason is read and learn and their obvious lies and bullshit does not work on you any more. It is all out there to read, learn and understand. I presume nothing I cannot prove with their words (grammar) and by applying logic to their grammar can come up with a reasonable and valid rhetoric weeding out all their deceptions, leaving the truth standing on its own. There is nothing about the right to travel either but the 1st amendment guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and Shapiro v. Thompson 394 U.S. 618 verifies this fact with the Supreme Courts “opinion.” Every traffic ticket is in fact, a bill of attainder with no “cause of action” to present to the court and the STATE never has “standing” to sue unless you really believe bugs bunny can be injured, the STATE being a fiction only existing in the minds of some delusionally brainwashed, indoctrinated people and of course a fiction that has NO obligation to protect you, me, nor anyone else. Wake up folks.

       
      • Jerry Sparks

        March 23, 2013 at 7:41 PM

        James,
        I asked a State Trooper one time when he presented me with a ticket for speeding,51mph in a 45mph zone, Who have I injured,etc.? He said, You have injured the peace & dignity of the People of the State of Texas. I said wow, then there is no way I could get a trial by jury because everyone on the jury are people I have injured. He said, “you should have thought of that before you committed the offense.” Actually, there was an injured party. ME. I was the injured party.

         
      • Jerry Sparks

        March 28, 2013 at 8:34 PM

        Hello again James,
        @ >Any government officer breaching their sworn or affirmed oath, is in fact treason,

        The oath taken today & since the end of the “Civil War” is honored. The problem is, they take an oath to uphold,support, & defend the Constitution as “unlawfully amended.” Check out the Judge Perez article re: THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL also Dyett v. Turner,State Supreme Court of Utah case. That court says the same thing & NO DISSENTS. If the 14th is unconstitutional, so is the 15th & ALL WAR Amendments enforced via appropriate legislation. This is the oath that is honored, the oath that supports these WAR amendments. Let me know what you think. There is a free version of the Judge L.H Perez document.

         
  7. tim

    March 2, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    A very good video, straight to the point!

     
  8. Anon4fun

    March 3, 2013 at 9:16 AM

    Sparky:

    Treason has a particular meaning so that “treason against the states” approximately means “treason against the government(s) of the states”.

    You can look up the definition of “treason” to see that it applies to acts against governments and similar, not the people directly, even though the people are ultimately the injured party when their political institutions are undermined (e.g. by someone disguised as Guy Fawkes, who was hanged for treason).

    Also, the word “state” has a variety of meanings. Sometimes it makes sense to say “the people of the state of (whatever)”. Other times, the people and the state are one and the same, at least in the American system.

     
    • Snapper

      March 3, 2013 at 12:12 PM

      Re: Also, the word “state” has a variety of meanings.
      Yes, all bases I presume,are covered. There are many different types of “immunities” too.

       
  9. Mvg-Avg

    March 4, 2013 at 10:18 AM

    Well from my observation deck Ihave one question for the sister: does she beleive in “this state”?
    It is very apparent that Richard Mack and Ted Nugent believe whole heartedly in “this state”.

    As far as I understand there are no God given unaleinable Rights in “this state”.Only privilages, immunities and persons.

    To hear Ted Nugent on A.J. and A.J. not correcting him on this matter it seems we have a long way to go in the education process. It seems Ted is in love with “this state”.Maybe someone else out there heard this interveiw and knows exactly what i’m talking about.

    It’s time for me to re-read the do you beleive in “this state” essay again. Al,your magnificant brilliance endowed to you from the Most High and you gift of teaching timeless truths are most apprieciated .It is disturbing that so many in the “pay” triot media community either don’t grasp the concept of “this state” or are intentionally misleading “The People”

    Oh yes, deception, Territorial Ted is tight with the invading army!

     
    • Jerry Sparks

      March 29, 2013 at 1:03 AM

      Mvg-Avg
      It’s to the point of, “who’s on first,by Abbott & Costello.

       
  10. Anthony Clifton

    March 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM

    curiously, a global crime syndicate in covinous collusion with the {ZOG} so-called USGOV has managed to ledgerdemain quadrillions of “dollars” and mass murder over 300 million {Nonjews} in the last century…

    http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2013/03/blind-spot.html

    define pilpul twaddle…

    http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Texas-Independence-Day-4321982.php

    is it a joke that the braindeadgoy “Murkins'” celebrate their freedom on 4 Jew Lie….

    OK, OK . . . name just one time {since 1860} when the so-called USGOV accidentally made a mistake in favor of the “people”…

    http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/israel-lobby-vs-the-church/

    when has America received any BLESSINGS for sacrificng children and treasure for the “Jewish” state ?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040214022133/http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html

    …and remember That….
    Janet Reno was not AG when the ADL/ATF assaulted the Davidians on 28 Feb 93.

    who is responsible for spilling innocent blood against the peace and dignity of the soil…?

     
    • Snapper

      March 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

      Anthony,
      @ >who is responsible for spilling innocent blood against the peace and dignity of the soil…?

      It saddens me to say this,but it appears that I am at least one who is responsible,& I expect to & must pay the piper. It doesn’t help to say, I did not knowingly allow this to happen.It doesn’t help to say IF I could have prevented it,I would have. It happened & I did not do anything to stop it.

       
  11. Mvg-Avg

    March 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

    Could it be ZOG who has instituted the “man or other goy(im)” drug laws ? I believe so .

    Zog is the Pale Horse, really mean sick individuals ,brute beasts.creatures of instinct.

    They got big plans .

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s