Cumberland Times-News

March 11, 2013

Arms taken and banned to subdue populace

To the Editor:
Cumberland Times-News

— Our Bill of Rights was modeled after the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Clearly the right to bear arms has been part of our heritage.

It is not about hunting, not about sportsmanship, not about personal defense not even about invading armies, but instead oppression from our own government.

How can anyone this day and age after the corrupt passage of Obamacare, where all decency was suspended, every rule broken and in advent of a thoroughly corrupt fourth estate not worry about an oppression similar to Germany, Russia and China; where gun control allowed the deaths of 56,000,000 all told.

Gun control has resulted in hundreds of times more deaths than the lack thereof. How many died in Maryland last year as a result of assault weapons?

The FBI stated that it does not break these statistics down per state. This is clearly an Alinskyite opportunity to restrict and enact a pre-existing old liberal dream.

Why not ban every automobile with the capacity to travel over 50 mph. Those are the vehicles that have killed more people than guns. After all, we would have no DUIs without cars. These assault vehicles need to be banned immediately as weel as the gasolene that goes in them.

  The Bill of Rights was an Act of the Parliament of England passed on Dec. 16 1689, far earlier than ours. It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689.

It laid down limits on the powers of the crown and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement to regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution.

It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms, and condemned James II of England for “causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.”

Arms were taken and forbidden. Not by foreign army but to subdue the populace! The colonists were familiar with history!

 The ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England. It also set out, certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people the people to rule. Not otherwise ... Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Obama, or Ms. Feinstein.

Provisions of the act included freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution,no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament. And no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defense, rights that were previously taken from Protestants by James II, not a foreign government. The Germans, Russians, and Chinese were not enslaved by a foreign government.

The Founding Fathers knew what the term arms meant. There’s no question as the meaning of the Second Amendment, according to Robert Blakey, author of the RICO Act, investigator in the second congressional investigation of the death of John Kennedy.

Blakey is the professor of criminal law at University Notre Dame Law School. He says any scholar who contends otherwise is dishonest!

Our freedoms in Maryland are being butchered! Taken a slice at time. What stands in the way of total domination? Will we end up like the Czechs in the 1970s throwing potatoes at tanks, while the national media cheers on the tanks?  


Wayne Pennington