February 22nd, 2013

Miracles Never Cease. Massachusetts Town Dumps Assault Weapon Ban


Who’da Thunk? This is a really high-spirited report despite the fact that the guy reporting on-scene is obviously displeased with the outcome of a town-hall meeting which got rid of a proposed “assault weapon” ban for their town. The packed meeting hall erupts in a standing ovation when the city dumps the proposed assault-weapons ban.

What I find very curious is the President of NRA, David Keene, admitting that in his view it is “legal” to compromise the Second Amendment. Please read the text below and view the brief video at InfoWars for a rewarding moment of encouragement as we the people fought back against governmental insanity over the statist gun-grab which is now tearing this nation apart. It is important to view the brief video – see link below.

-

Infowars_Rocker

-

This happy article published by InfoWars on February 21, 2013. To see the video please hit this link:

http://www.infowars.com/citizens-applaud-defeat-of-firearms-ban-in-massachusetts/

by Kurt Nimmo

Obama and the Democrats in Congress would have us believe most Americans are for “sensible” restrictions on the Second Amendment. A town meeting in Massachusetts on Wednesday night, however, turned this assumption on its head.

A majority of people attending a town hall meeting in Westford, Massachusetts, responded to the withdrawal of an assault weapons ban by city government with thunderous applause and a standing ovation.

Vice Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Robert Jeffries was surprised by the reaction. “I thought there would be a [negative] reaction,” he told WBZ-TV in Boston. “But I also thought maybe some other towns in Massachusetts might have also tried something similar and none of them did. So it left us isolated as the only ones.”

The NRA’s David Keene responded to the decision with the organization’s standard middle-of-the-road defense of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

“One of the things that people in these town meetings and other folks ought to look at is the constitution itself. It is possible and it is legal to put certain restrictions on second amendment rights,” he said, “but those kinds of restrictions have to be looked at very critically.”

.




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

7 Responses to “Miracles Never Cease. Massachusetts Town Dumps Assault Weapon Ban”

  1. 1
    mike smith Says:

    THE BILL OR RIGHTS, our are rights, not a privileged,and are not arbitrary!!!! What the heck is with David Keene?

  2. 2
    Darin Bowers Says:

    I agree with you Mike, i went off on the NRA over the phone awhile back, they have become too political, too soft, too pliable. I am and always will be a member due to its shear size and ability to core beliefs, but they need to get back to “down right hard core, no compromise” on the 2nd amendment immediately. Its almost like they have drank some of the globalist koolaid, amd forgot that OUR RIGHTS are NOT to be trifled with, in any way. The GOA, which i recently joined, seems to be the “new NRA”, they are hardcore, no compromise and Larry Pratt is a badass imo, he totally stomped Peirs Morgans ass and exposed how truly disgusting and traitorous CNN and their brothers truly are. Mr Pratt has earned my membership, and i will support them for the rest of my life. Fight the good fight brothers. -Darin

  3. 3
    Cal Says:

    “The NRA’s David Keene responded to the decision with the organization’s standard middle-of-the-road defense of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

    “One of the things that people in these town meetings and other folks ought to look at is the constitution itself. It is possible and it is legal to put certain restrictions on second amendment rights,” he said, “but those kinds of restrictions have to be looked at very critically.””

    He is incorrect. The Bill of Rights are inalienable (Unalienable, inalienable: “Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” “incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another” ; “Not capable of being violated or infringed”). NRA’s David Keene better take some Constitution classes, he can try Hillsdale online classes to start.

  4. 4
    Richard Says:

    It’s time for the NRA Membership to send a clear message to their leaders… Quit pussyfooting around and tell Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch to “go pound sand” where the Second Amendment is concerned. No more compromises! No more concessions!

  5. 5
    Paul Says:

    David Keens has out lasted his usefulness…he has got to go. The present WH adminastration will probably offer him a job…

  6. 6
    Bo Lustgarten Says:

    The NRA like most (all?) big organizations seems to be a form of authorized opposition which eventually brings forth the COMPROMISE. This then puts us one step closer to where our oppressors want us.

  7. 7
    Ant Says:

    @Cal

    Actually Cal, you’re incorrect.

    “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”
    Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

    Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

    You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

    Here’s a discussion over it.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/80481/inalienable-rights-vs-unalienable-rights

    It is believed to have been written as “inalienable” by Jefferson and changed by Adams and I believe rightly so.

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148