Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    NC Man Gives Passionate Defense Of Second Amendment At City Council Meeting

    NC Man Gives Passionate Defense Of Second Amendment At City Council Meeting

    “The law-abiding citizens of this community, of other communities we are the first ones taxed and the last ones considered”

    https://youtu.be/vo_X53dNTS8

    It’s difficult sometimes to remain positive in the seemingly pervasive post-Parkland gun-grabbing fever, but as pervasive as that fever feels, it’s heartening to remember that we are not alone in the seemingly daily battle against leftist attacks on our Second Amendment.

    Mark Robinson attended a city council meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina when he learned that it was set up to discuss cancelling a gun show.  After listening to several speakers advocating anti-Second Amendment policy, he decided to speak up.  The result has gone viral, and with good reason.

    Robinson blasts gun-grabbing leftists for their assault on the rights of law-abiding gun owners and asks why they are so interested in “these minorities and that minorities.”  He then asks, pointedly, “when are you all going to stand up for the majority?”

    Rush has a partial transcript:

    I’ve heard a whole lot of people here talking tonight about this group and that group, domestic violence, blacks. These minorities and that minority. What I want to know is, when are you all gonna start standing up for the majority? And here’s who the majority is. I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen who’s never shot anybody, never committed a felony. I’ve never done anything like that.

    But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter’s feet. You want to put it at my feet. You want to turn around and restrict my right, Constitutional right that’s spelled out in black and white, you want to restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself from some of the very people you’re talking about in here tonight. It’s ridiculous. I don’t think Rod Serling could come up with a better script.

    He then notes, “It does not make any sense.  The law-abiding citizens of this community, of other communities we are the first ones taxed and the last ones considered. And the first ones punished when things like this happen.”

    Robinson also points out the glaring problem with the left’s anti-Second Amendment stance: criminals are criminals, so by definition, they don’t obey the law.  Street gangs, he notes, are not going to turn in their weapons.

    So the criminals are gonna hold on to their guns. They’re still gonna have ’em. They’re still gonna break in my house, and they’re still gonna shoot me with ’em. And guess who’s gonna be the one that suffers? It’s gonna be me. Well, I’m here to tell you tonight, it is not going to happen without a fight. And when I say fight, I don’t mean shots fired; I don’t mean fists thrown.

    I mean I’m going to come down here to this city council and raise hell just like these loonies from the left do until you listen to the majority of the people in this city. And I am the majority. The majority of the people in this city are law-abiding, and they follow the law. And they want their constitutional right to be able to bear arms.

    . . . .  They want to be able to go to the gun show and buy a hunting rifle or sport rifle. There are no military grade weapons sold at the gun shows. An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. Anybody would go into combat with an AR-15 is a fool. It’s a semiautomatic .22 rifle. You’d be killed in 15 minutes in combat with that thing. So we need to dispel all these myths, and we need to drop all this division that we got going on here. ‘Cause the bottom line is, when that Second Amendment was written, whether the Framers liked it or not, they wrote it for everybody. And I am everybody. And the law-abiding citizens of this city are everybody. And we want our rights, and we want to keep our rights — and, by God, we’re gonna keep ’em, come hell or high water.

    It’s well-worth watching.  Twice.

    Robinson appeared on Fox and explained that he didn’t originally intend to speak at all.  He was inflamed by some of the comments from his fellow citizens about curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and felt inspired to speak out.

    When normal citizens stand up and make impassioned speeches in support of the Second Amendment, everyone takes notice.

    Remember this guy:

    It’s easy to forget that we are indeed the majority and that our voice matters.  However, when citizens like Robinson speak up and make us all cheer, we know that we are not alone.  We might also wonder if we are doing enough.  Good people, Robinson says, should not be cowed by the left and should stand up for what is right in city council meetings, in town halls, in every public forum.

    Videos like these go viral because so few of us bother to stand up and speak out.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    “people declared mentally incompetent”

    That sounds reasonable… Until you see this:

    Conservatism is a mental disorder
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/conservatism-mental-illness%3famp

    And that’s just one of many that crop up every 6 months or so. Such junk science is good for a chuckle… followed by an abrupt silence as you remember the science was settled on Global Warming.

    We can be sure the Marxists will declare us mentally incompetent as an excuse to strip us of our rights. It’s already in their playbook, they ran it several times in the 20th century.

    I agree the mentally ill should not have a loaded weapon, but can we really trust the State to determine who is mentally ill?


       
       2 
       
       3
      JBourque in reply to Fen. | April 8, 2018 at 4:37 am

      You and that other person are just imagining definitions out of me. It’s immature.

      If a court of law declares an individual incompetent in accordance with due process, the state has a legitimate right in not wanting that person being part of “the militia” of law-abiding gun-bearing citizens. That is a high bar. It should be a high bar. But it’s insane not to have any bar at all.

      Let’s take the “people who have fully served their sentence” as Mac45 brought up. We’ve all heard of parole, yes? A lot of people are freed on parole. By definition, these people have not finished their sentences, else they would not be on parole. The state has a legitimate interest in controlling their access to weapons. This is reasonable. If you want to ban even this, it’s not reasonable, and if you want to argue the 14th amendment forbids it, I’m confident the courts will laugh in your face.

      Preventing a single individual from bearing arms does not mean the public is banned from bearing arms. Such rights are intended for law, abiding, people. Everything flows from there.


         
         1 
         
         1
        Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 8, 2018 at 11:44 am

        You keep missing the point. So, let me attempt to explain it ONE MORE TIME.

        This has nothing to do with what people may want. It has nothing to do with what people may believe is sane or insane. It has to do with the sanctity of the contract upon which this nation is based, the Constitution of the United States of America.

        In the case of laws, the courts may rule as to their Constitutionality. They do this by gauging the actions of these laws against the restrictions within the Constitution and its various amendments. What they are not free to do is to rewrite the Constitution and its amendments or to “interpret” that document in a way which does not strictly adhere to the strictest interpretation of its language.

        Now, does the state have a legitimate interest in regulating the ownership and possession of weapons? Yes. However, the Framers of the Constitution, representing the states and their inhabitants, drafted the Bill of Rights to restrict the power of the federal government. One of the things that they wished to restrict was the ability of the federal government to regulate to ownership and possession of weapons by the citizenry. Nothing within the Bill of Rights applied to the states in 1791. The Framers, all men of power and influence within their states, assumed that the states, which were the dominant partners in the new nation, would decide to what extent their citizens’ right to keep and bear arms would be infringed. Notice, this is another of those rights which are apparently not universal and inviolate in the minds of the Founding Fathers.

        But, as went into at length, idiots failed to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences and drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment. This extended the Bill of Rights to the states, in toto. And, it was done by the method authorized by the Constitution, ratification. So, like it or not we, the people, are stuck with this situation. And, as I said, the 2nd Amendment clearly and concisely prohibits the government from regulating the ownership and possession of firearms and other weapons. So, if people want to change it so that governments can regulate this “right”, then the Constitution has to be amended by the authorized procedure. It can not simple be ignored.

        As to parole. Parole is supposed to be a transitory stage, whereby a person proves their desire to function in society without the strict supervision of incarceration. And, they waive their protection [their rights] guaranteed under the constitution for the privilege of remaining out of confinement. In other words, they freely agree to waive certain of their rights, most notably those guaranteed under the 2nd and 4th Amendments. However, this probationary period may not extend past the limits of a normal period of incarceration for the crime for which they were convicted. At the end of that time, the voluntary suspension of the person’s rights ends and he is then entitled to the same protections as any other citizen of the US. Now, what has happened is that the governments of this country have decided that they can suspend certain of a person’s guaranteed rights even after a person has completed his sentence. This includes the protections of the 2nd Amendment. Again, nowhere within the Constitution is there ANY clause which allows this and especially not within the body of the 2nd Amendment. And, what is with the notion that a person serves a life sentence for a simple battery, just because it involved a person with whom the convicted had a relationship? Is that sane?

        As to being declared mentally incompetent. Everyone, myself included, agrees that anyone who is declared mentally incompetent should not be allowed own or possess a firearm, or other weapon. The problem that attend today, is the assumption that once a person has been involuntarily committed for any mental issue, he is permanently barred from exercising his right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. yet, he is deemed sane enough to wander around in the general population without any supervision what-so-ever. During this time, he has unfettered access to all types of dangerous and destructive agents, including knives and swords, flammable materials, dangerous chemicals, motor vehicles [land, air and sea]; all of which can cause immense destruction, injury or death. But, he can not own or possess a firearm. Is this sane?


     
     3 
     
     2
    Ragspierre | April 8, 2018 at 8:52 am

    According to the racist 4th Amour Div., black people have contributed nothing to America.

    So put about 20x shorter, you concede that people on parole or court-declared mentally incompetent should not have firearms, even by a very strict reading of the 2nd and 14th amendments. I would like to point out, politely, that the 14th amendment contains the language, “except by due process of law”.

    That doesn’t mean there are not bad laws. That does not mean there are unreasonable laws that are bad policy. It means that the 14th is not enough to make them unconstitutional.

    Now, as for losing gun rights permanently for ever being institutionalized or for “simple battery” (…isn’t that, for domestic violence?), I applaud you challenging states that want to be unreasonable about this and to whittle 2nd amendment rights away beyond the point of sense. You’ve imagined I am arguing against you. I am not. I am just pointing out that your doctrine of a completely unregulated militia is silly.

    Even a very generous interpretation of that phrase simply cannot support the notion that states are powerless to regulate people who stray from the straight and narrow path. If a militia is called up to serve, there are rules: you do not drink while on duty, you do not sleep on watch, you do not stand and smoke within sight of enemy snipers, you do not engage in physical violence against your officers. A demobilized militia of law-abiding citizens also has rules. Why is this concept so difficult? Because of the poison left by leftists manipulating this wording to argue it is a collective right of the government? That was silly then and it is silly now.

    The right of the people, as a whole, to bear arms, is not infringed by insuring you, an individual, cannot bear arms if you are found, via due process, to violate the reasonable regulations laid down by human society. What is due process? What is reasonable? Let’s work those out. Let’s not chuck rotten tomatoes at the principle that there is such a thing as process and reason where guns are involved.

      Aaaand that was meant to Mac45. This happens too often after logging in. Apologies.

      Anyway, summation: people should find reasonable ground. Too many people don’t, that is a problem.


       
       1 
       
       0
      Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 8, 2018 at 3:53 pm

      Good try. But, you seem to want to completely ignore the language of the 2nd Amendment. There is no due process of law which allows a person to be stripped of his right to own and possess weapons.

      Now, let me explain what transpires in the only two instances where a person can be stripped of his “right” to own and possess weapons.

      The first is when a person is incarcerated for a criminal offense. In such a case, that person actually becomes a ward of the government. He has the legal status of a child and he can be denied anything, by his guardian, the state, which does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, especially if allowing that person access to certain things, such as weapons, places others at risk.

      The second is when a person is adjudicated incompetent, either temporarily or permanently. In the first case, that person becomes a ward of whatever agency holds him in custody and in the second it is whomever the court acknowledges as his guardian. These guardians are responsible for the actions of the incompetent person and, as with a child, can deny him access to certain items, such as weapons.

      Understand? In both these cases, the person is deemed incompetent to wander at-large in society and is assigned some type of guardian. The person on parole or probation agrees to waive certain rights in order to avoid incarceration.; However, in the case of the criminal, once he has successfully competed his sentence, he no longer has a guardian and therefor can not be denied his rights, under the Constitution. In the case of the person involuntarily committed, temporarily, by releasing that person back into society, without a guardian, society is accepting that this person is both competent and no longer a threat to himself or others. If this is the case, then there is no grounds to withhold hid exercise of all of his rights. The person who is declared to be permanently incompetent, then he is treated like a child his guardian is responsible for his behavior.

      Now, about your due process of law. Sorry, but this does not apply to the 2nd Amendment, as the 2nd amendment clearly states that the right of the people shall not be infringed. As this was directed to the government, this would mean that there was simple no due process which can strip a person of this right, with one exception, legally making someone a ward of another. Historically, those people who have not yet reached the age of majority are considered a ward and that ward can, and does, have the authority to ignore Constitutional protections which exist for adults. It also applies to incarcerated criminals and those found to be incompetent by a court. I have already explained how both of these classes of people actually exist under the mantel of guardianship. These people are legally wards and their guardians, whomever they may be, are responsible for them.

      I see that you simply can not let go of the “militia” argument. I have already explained that this amendment was not aimed solely at safeguarding a state militia, but at the right of the people to be armed. And, while the citizens of our nation have to follow many rules, one of those rules is that the government can not regulate the ownership or possession of firearms and other weapons. It becomes a big problem when governments decide to selectively follow laws and rules, based upon their own desires. If you want government to have the authority to regulate the ownership and possession of firearms, then the 2nd Amendment has to be amended to allow for that. Otherwise any such government regulation is in violation of that Amendment. I can’t help that. The idea that Mark can be denied his expressed right to keep and bear arms simply because he stole a $300.01 television does not make society any safer. To deny a woman her expressed right to own a means of protection because she was involuntarily committed because she was depressed and threatening suicide following a miscarriage does not make society any safer. Both of these people have unfettered access to a plethora of dangerous items, even if their possession of firearms is restricted. I have already listed many of those items TWICE.

      The bottom line is that the Framers of the Constitution drafted the 2nd Amendment over 225 years ago. The states ratified it at almost the same time. Then in 1868, the states ratified the 14th Amendment, which applied the Bill of Rights to the state governments. This included the 2nd Amendment. The language of the Amendment has not changed in al of that time. It still says the same thing “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”. I do not know how much clearer it could be.

      Good luck with your argument. You’ll need it.


         
         0 
         
         1
        JBourque in reply to Mac45. | April 8, 2018 at 4:37 pm

        I’m going to stop you at “due process of law… does not apply to the 2nd amendment.”

        The 14th tells the states they may not deny life, liberty or property except by due process. The 14th is what makes the 2nd apply to the states. You’re saying the 14th, which is conditional, makes the 2nd apply to the states in a manner that is unconditional. This is illogical, and real life is not a game of “gotcha!”.

        Arguing that thieves, the mentally unstable, and similar persons, should have unfettered access to firearms, is not a legal argument; it is a political one. Certainly the legal precedents don’t support you. So, you’re going to have to go through the same process as everyone else: vote, lobby, convince. If you can convince law-abiding citizens that thieves and the unstable should have guns – that is, without some kind of showing that they have ceased to be a danger to human society, “the militia” itself – good for you! Let me know how that goes.


           
           1 
           
           0
          Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 8, 2018 at 9:31 pm

          “The 14th tells the states they may not deny life, liberty or property except by due process. The 14th is what makes the 2nd apply to the states. You’re saying the 14th, which is conditional, makes the 2nd apply to the states in a manner that is unconditional. This is illogical, and real life is not a game of “gotcha!”. ”

          The 2nd /amendment should apply to the states under the privileges and immunities clause, not the due process clause.
          Why? Because it is a privilege and an immunity, not a due process right. Here is the relevant section of the 14th :

          “Section 1.

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          See? Technically, the federal government, as it is not covered by the 14th Amendment, can not regulate firearms because the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. It had always been that way, up until the 1930s. Then the Progressive courts started playing games to attempt to limit the scope of the /amendment. See, the 2nd is an absolute prohibition against regulating private ownership and possession of weapons. The 4th, on the other hand, is a due process right. It only protects a person fro UNWARRANTED searches and seizures, not from all searches and seizures. When the SCOTUS heard McDonald, Scalia wanted to rule that the 2nd was incorporated to the states under the due process clause. This was adopted as the reason for the incorporation. Thomas dissented, on the grounds that this was a privileged right, not a due process right, which could be legislated away. Thomas was correct, Scalia was incorrect. But, later in McDonald we see why Scalia wanted to use the due process clause. This was for the express purpose of allowing exceptions to the ban on regulation of firearms, and other weapons, for “reasonable restrictions”. This was political and flies squarely in the face of historical fact and logic. There is no exception to the ban on regulation on owning or possessing a weapon anywhere in the body of the 2nd Amendment. Scalia essentially rewrote the 2nd Amendment to allow for “reasonable restrictions” on the right to keep and bear arms. I have explained why this has bcome the trend. Prior to the 1930s, there were no federal laws which abridged the right of a person to own and possess arms. That was because it was always assumed thjat the 2nd Amendment was an absolute ban on that right. In other words, it was viewed as a privilege which was immune to infringement. The states never stopped infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, even after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.

          Again you make my point about courts indulging in judicial fiat for political purposes. The wording of the 2nd is totally unambiguous. It is clear and concise. It absolutely prohibits the government from restricting the right of the people to own and possess weapons.

          so far, you have used just about every anti-2nd Amendment argument out there, including the well regulated militia argument and now the due process argument. I have answered all of them. No government can abridge the protections of the 2nd Amendment because there is no where in the 2nd Amendment, or the Constitution where this is allowed. The 2nd Amendment says what it says and that is all that it says. It is not amended by the 14th Amendment, because it is not subject to due process. It is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, and therefor a civil rights violation, for a government to infringe upon any person’s right to keep and bear arms.

          Sorry, that is what the Amendment says and there is nothing to change it.

          A couple more things.

          What makes you think that if a government is allowed to violate the civil rights of convicted criminals or people who were mentally ill but have now been released, unsupervised, back into society, that they will not dream up reasons to do the same other people? Look at NYC, Chicago, D.C. and a dozen other places in the US. The law abiding citizenry is effectively disarmed in these cities. But, the criminals still seem to be armed.

          Also, lets talk about danger to society. Do you know who really needs a firearm for protection? The weak; women, the elderly, the disabled. The 2nd Amendment protects these people’s right to be armed in self defense, except in NYC, Chicago, D.C. and other places. If everyone is legally allowed to own and carry firearms, then everyone is equal. They all have the same means to resist unlawful attack. As to denying criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms, how is that working out? Perhaps you should go to Chicago and talk to the gangbangers there about giving up their guns. The only thing that keeps criminal from preying upon the rest of society is if that society is armed and can protect itself. This does not work all the time, but being armed at least gives the populous a fighting chance against criminals. Od course no one ever thingks that these criminals and former mental patients all have access to gasoline and matches, dangerous chemicals, motor vehicles, including airplanes, knives, swords, iron pipes and other clubs and a myriad of other improvised weapons. But, no one ever gets run over by a criminal or lunatic, or set on fire, or stabbed, or beaten to death. Nope, people only get shot. Let me kow how banning access to all of these other things works out for you.


     
     0 
     
     1
    Dimsdale | April 9, 2018 at 9:36 am

    This man is my new hero! He states what is obviously the “common sense” that liberals decry but only give lip service to. Other words they have problems with are “fair” and “justice,” to name a few.

    Bottom line: liberals just don’t trust the people.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend