Keith Olbermann: NRA Is a Terrorist Organization
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’
Posted October 7, 2017
According to Breitbart News Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann accused the NRA of “enabling” mass shootings like the in Las Vegas, which saw more than 50 dead and more than 500 wounded.
As for the length of this article please don’t blame me, that responsibility lies strictly with Americas Forefathers and their Infinite depiction of the necessity of ‘We The People’ being armed.
As written by Breitbart:
“In his latest video as part of his ‘series, Olbermann stated that the Second Amendment was originally written in the Constitution “to keep federal government from taking away the right of each state to maintain its own militia.” He claimed that the Amendment has since been modified “into an excuse for why madmen of whatever heritage or political purpose cannot be stopped from carrying at least ten long rifles into a hotel room in Las Vegas and setting up a sniper’s nest and killing people.”
Olbermann claimed that the Second Amendment is outdated and does not take into account modern weaponry. “Keep and bear … do not mean ‘own’–period,” Olbermann said. “The Second Amendment is gun-control from an era where the gun was a musket and not an automatic killing machine that could be bought and stashed on the 32nd floor of a hotel in order to shoot people 500 at a time.” Olbermann also called out President Trump for his reaction to the Vegas shooting, saying, that “warmest condolences” are not sufficient.
Olbermann then called for an end to the NRA and to President Trump, stating: It is time to end refusing to call mass murderers who do not have obvious political motives “terrorists.” It is time to end the National Rifle Association. And it is time to end the career of any political figure who made his way to the White House dog whistling to his Second Amendment people.”
Olbermann stated that “the Second Amendment was originally written in the Constitution to keep federal government from taking away the right of each state to maintain its own militia.” And, ”Keep and bear … do not mean ‘own’–period,” Olbermann said. He couldn’t be more wrong my friend. Please read on and you will become an American convert of the truth and the history of the Second Amendment. And what the people who wrote the Constitution had to say about citizens being armed, and why.
A little history that is still available despite the anti-American historical revisionists.
Even though now state and federal governments seem to be bent on taking away as many rights as they possibly can get away with, listen to what was going on because of the tyranny they had just recently abolished.
Independence being declared in 1776, the states themselves began adopting their own bills of rights, several of which recognized “the right of the people” to have arms for various purposes, such as self-defense and the common defense. While some states saw no need for declarations of rights, the liberty of bearing arms was universally recognized. At the same time, militias composed of all male citizens were seen as necessary counter-weights to the threat of a standing army.
A firestorm was sparked when the Constitution was proposed in 1787 without a bill of rights. Federalists and Antifederalists fiercely battled over the issue as the states began ratifying the Constitution. In the first conventions, the Federalists defeated demands for recognition of a bill of rights for fear of limiting their rights to a short list until the 9th Amendment was purposed stating that citizens rights are not limited to the previous eight listed. And then the tide turned in Virginia, where Patrick Henry and George Mason prevailed in persuading the convention to demand a bill of rights.
A great compromise was reached when the Federalists and Antifederalists concurred that the Constitution would be ratified subject to the agreement that the first Congress would consider amendments. James Madison did just that by proposing what became the Bill of Rights in 1787. Federalists explained that what became the Second Amendment would protect the right of the people to keep and bear their private arms, which would guard against tyranny and the evils of a standing army. However, proposals to increase state militia powers were rejected.
Thomas Jefferson, a life-long hunter and gun collector, wrote just before his death in 1826 that “all power is inherent in the people; . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” The understanding by his generation of the Second Amendment was clear and unmistakable—as its text states, it recognizes “the right of the people” to possess and carry arms. The Constitution defines the respective powers of the federal and state governments, but the entire Bill of Rights speaks of individual rights.
And while the Second Amendment clearly states that this right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any law contrary to it, the states as well as the federal government have violated that law and have completely ignored the platform for which stands the very unique freedom we as a nation possessed.
And as we watch our Constitution and rights crumble into the very ash pile of tyranny that we as a nation came from, we apathetically and ignorantly buy into this promise of security and nannyism.
While I understand Mr. Olbermann’s anger at the recent abuse of fire arms by some kind of nut going on a rampage murdering more than 50 young lives and seriously injuring more than 500 others, because I am equally as angry. And although he has a right to speak his mind no matter how ignorant and misdirected it is, even to go on his own ignorant rampage and demonize the entire history of the United States of America and its future. But then I also have the right to present the documented truth which is so contrary to the lies that he and others like him promote.
The real problem here is that Mr. Keith Olbermann is allowing his emotions to control his mind. And/or he doesn’t really have a grasp of what America is, the Constitution and how it protects our freedom.
First the Second Amendment was developed over time, several versions seen below of the Amendment were considered. But you can see that in every case it refers to the people’s right to keep and bear arms not just the militia which you will see was also composed of the body of the people.
June 8th 1789
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
August 17th 1789
A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
August 24th 1789
A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well-regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
A well-regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
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
As someone who has studied the U.S. Constitution and more importantly its history I present the following as evidence of the real reason for the Second Amendment as stated by those who were there and were instrumental in the development of the Second Amendment. And so that there be no confusion or misunderstanding of what the architects of the Constitution actually meant by the Second Amendment please read what they have to say my friend.
The Founding Fathers on Arms and the Second Amendment
"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 Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson Elliot's Debates, vol. 3
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington First President of the United States
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun…. Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry American Patriot
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Papers at 184-8
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson
"I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." -- Thomas Jefferson to Uriah Forrest, 1787. Papers, 12:477.
As to the character and intelligence of Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
On the issue of safety:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)
On the issue of unconstitutional laws:
No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”- An Opinion by - John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
THE BOTTOM LINE: We can’t abolish freedom and everything that America stands for, just because of the dictates of a few crazies no matter how horrendous. Need I say more? I think that says it all my friend. And as usual if you would like to challenge me on anything in this article, I would welcome it.THE BOTTON LINE: Need I really say more
Thanks for listening my friend. Now go do the right thing, pray and fight for truth and freedom.
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list. It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2005 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved - Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.