You are viewing the archives of the old northcoastoregon.com. Please visit the new North Coast Oregon at: http://www.northcoastoregon.com/

Speech: "The Guardian"

by Walter Richards

Performed by Jerry Hughes of the Accent Radio Network.
For more information on how YOU can help bring back a Bill of Rights culture, go to here . For more on our “Government Keep Out” series of speeches, go to JPFO

On July 4, 1776, a new nation was born. It was more free than any that had ever existed on earth.

By the time we stood up to declare independence, men had already been fighting for the new nation for more than a year. The fighters were, for the most part, a well-trained but un-uniformed rabble. Farmers. Shopkeepers. Dockworkers. Members of their local militias.

These nobodies had taken on the biggest superpower on earth—Britain.

No president or general or any other central power ordered them to start fighting. They just did what had to be done. To this day, nobody knows who fired the first shot when the British soldiers arrived to confiscate firearms and ammunition from the citizens of Lexington and Concord.

That much, you probably know.

But the myth of the unorganized rabble putting the superpower on the run tells only part of the truth. The men who won America actually possessed more sophisticated military weaponry than their foes.

The best small arm of the day was the Kentucky long rifle. Our little mob had it. The “legally constituted government”—as represented by the red-coated soldiers—didn’t.

Let me repeat that. Ordinary American men had a weapon not available to the soldiers of the world’s biggest superpower. They knew how to use it in defense of their towns and properties. And they used it to be free.

In July 2006, the United Nations held a conference—one in a long series of them—to disarm the ordinary men and women of the world.

This has been a long-time goal of the U.N. Anyone who loves freedom should carefully consider what the U.N. aims to do. Their intention is to ensure that only governments have guns.

They want to set up a system that will let any government on earth keep all guns out of the hands of anybody who isn’t approved by government.

That might sound sensible if you don’t think too hard. But that means that the United Nations wants to make sure that the worst, most evil, tyrannical, brutal government on this planet has the power to make sure that its opponents can never fight against it.

They want to make sure that underdogs always lose. That freedom fighters can never win. According to U.N. standards, Hitler should have had guns, but German Jews should not. (Funny, that was Hitler’s plan, too.) According to U.N. standards, Stalin should have had guns, but the farmers he deliberately starved to death in the Ukraine should not. (Stalin would have agreed with the U.N.)

If the United Nations had had its way three centuries ago, America would never have been born. And you and your family, to this day, would be at the mercy of any dictator who wanted to rule over you or any thug who wanted to attack you.

Don’t believe me?

Look what’s happened in nations that have confiscated firearms or forbidden their possession:

Germany: genocide
Armenia: genocide
Russia: genocide
Rwanda: genocide
China: genocide
Uganda: genocide

The list goes on.

The simple fact behind all the complicated issues of “gun control” is this: Citizens of free countries have guns. Groveling subjects of dictatorships do not.

Not long after the War for Independence ended, the founders of America gave us a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights has one vital function: It is a no trespassing sign. It says, “Government, keep out.”

It delineates what government is forbidden to do. It says government, especially the federal government, has only limited, delegated authority. It says the people, on the other hand, have a multitude of inborn rights that no legitimate government can ever take away.

But governments are powerful and individuals are small. How could the people retain their hard-won rights against the threat of overwhelming force?

Within the great Bill, the founders placed one amendment to guard all the rest. The guardian is the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms.

But the right to bear arms means nothing without the farmers and shopkeepers—or today we might say the computer programmers, assembly-line workers, nurses, and auto mechanics—who are the ones meant to be the first defenders of liberty.

Today, the fashionable voices of the media tell us the Second doesn’t really mean it when it says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They assure us it means only that the states have authority to operate National Guard units. They assure us guns are too dangerous for mere rabble to possess.

They tell us, most assuredly, that government agents should always be able to out-shoot anybody who breaks the law—even if the law in question is unjust and tyrannical. They tell us it’s for our own good for government to be infinitely more powerful than We the People.

Is that so? Do you believe it? Then why did James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, say, “The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals”?

Why did Patrick Henry say, “The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun”?

And why did Thomas Jefferson declare, “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”?

Because free men are armed. Slaves are not.

No, the Second Amendment is not the government’s right. Governments have no rights. And they shouldn’t. Governments are big, dangerous dinosaurs. They should be kept within limits and carefully watched at all times.

The Second is your right. Ultimately it’s your right to control your own government. Your right to be free.

The Second Amendment is the minuteman standing guard over the rights to free speech, fair trials, and a free press. The Second puts “liberty teeth” into the promise in the Bill of Rights that government won’t be allowed to lock us up without charges or snoop through our lives without warrants.

The Second says, more effectively than any other amendment, “Government, keep out.”

The fashionable voices laugh at the idea that Americans might ever have to shoot back at their own government. And let’s hope we never do have to. But the great beauty of the Second Amendment is that, just as the mere presence of a firearm can deter a crook from entering a house, the mere presence of millions of watchful armed citizens deters tyrants.

The Guardian best does its job when not a single shot is ever fired!

Yet despite remaining an armed nation, we’ve failed the Second Amendment. We’ve failed freedom. And we are in peril because of it.

Tyrants don’t need to conquer us by force of arms. Instead, they buy us off, building enormous unconstitutional empires with our hard-earned money and promises of handouts. They disarm us mentally so they can disarm us physically.

Today, instead of demanding our uninfringed right to be just as well armed as soldiers and police officers, we’ve let governments impose rules on us that their own people don’t have to obey. They invade our homes and towns with machine guns. But they tell us our own firearms should be fit only for “sporting purposes.”

“Sporting purposes” was never written into the Second Amendment. And it wouldn’t have done the farmers of Lexington much good. “Sporting purposes” was unknown in U.S. law until 1968 when—get ready for this—a U.S. Senator, Thomas Dodd, copied it from a Nazi German “gun control” law.

Today, we allow the Second Amendment to be violated by an illegal agency called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. This agency is notorious for its viciousness, its entrapment schemes, its false charges against innocent people, and its bureaucratic arrogance and incompetence.

It is un-American in the deepest sense. But we tolerate it.

Now the government thinks it has defanged its citizens. They think they can force our protests into prison-like “free speech zones.” They think our once free press will always be willing to spout what the government wants us to hear. They believe we’ll tolerate imprisonment without charges as long as its done to people we don’t care about. They think they can regulate away all but a few of our weapons. They even think they can buy off our churches (once major voices against government abuse) with “faith-based” government handouts and special tax favors.

But what they fear is this: The Guardian, though weakened, still remains.

When the founders wrote the Bill of Rights, they didn’t “give” us anything. They were merely putting into writing what already existed. You have a right to defend your life, your family, your community—and your freedom.

You have an inborn, undying right to defend yourself against anybody who tries to take your life and liberty. Anybody. Whether he’s a thug who works only for himself or for the biggest superpower on earth.

The Guardian has been battered, weakened, wounded, and infringed. But the Guardian remains—and always will—wherever a few brave men and women are willing to stand and say, “Government, keep out.”

Jul 1, 07:02 am | Walter Richards
Tags:
Click stars to rate this article. This article hasn't been rated yet.

12 comments on this article (post your own)

1 On Jul 1, 09:48 pm, Lee wrote:

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here. The weathermen sure didn’t last long, the Panthers didn’t either. They had plenty of weapons though, bless their hearts. Anyway —————————————Do you have an explanation for why I believe in government for the people, and you believe in Government-stay out”?

By encouraging partipation I value government. You consider it an enemy because of gun control, and yet when government wants polarization, they make sure plenty of weapons are available.

Do you feel you don’t have enough guns? Can’t anyone go get one if they want to?

The Declaration of Independence was written and signed after much soul searching. Some were too much “loyalist” to sign the declaration. It’s my understanding that the war couldn’t start until the people were organized by recruiter type people.

This piece seems to suggest that we just get a few people together and start shooting. An open invitation for a crackdown of Martial Law.

I am suspicious of this piece. I feel like it is an incitement to action with no leadership. And I disagree with some of the assumptions you proclaim, like I have an undying, unborn right to defend myself against anyone who threatens my life or liberty.

It’s like saying if I’m falsely arrested, I have a right to shoot the arresting officer. Is that what you are saying here walter? Or are you saying, if he is wearing a uniform, he isn’t a thug. How am I to know who is a thug at the time it is happening.
Ask for a badge?

Just please calmly, in your own words, tell us what you are afraid of with the government, and what you hope to accomplish with this disorganized call to arms? Chaos? I just don’t get it.

2 On Jul 1, 10:28 pm, Lee wrote:

Walter, when i voiced my suspicions of the Electronic Voting machines before 2004, you said you saw no problem.

You haven’t complained about RealID, or Bush’s cousin at Fox calling the election for Bush when nbc called it for Gore in 2,000.

You haven’t mentioned that the unusual demonstrations in california have been found to have been orgainzed by RNC operatives and republican controlled media.

But When 9/11 happened, i remember you and patrick were discussing getting a militia together to rout out terrist cells in Jeffers Gardens.

It’s always about finding or contriving a motive to get people to get their guns. Never about how we get where we get to in the first place.

Jeb Bush signed a law making it easier to shoot people on the street, if you just “feel” threatened in Florida.

Constant Persistent Nonviolent types of action is the answer. The Law.

You are not helping any cause but the Fascist cause, if you incite people.

I posted an article about how much money the border guards are making by taking bribes and other dirty deeds involving the immigrants, on Patrick’s site but he erased it for some strange reason. I guess he didn’t want you to be disillusioned and stop cleaning your arsenal. He knows the immigrants were being used to get another energy lobbyist into congress.

How come, as an american, you don’t write about voter fraud? Most of the voters never wanted Bush. Then they bought the war lies.

How about writing about the influx of so called neo-nazis trying to raise trouble in Olympia. What’s that about. Smoking out Pinkos for the Feds?

3 On Jul 2, 08:09 am, Walter Richards wrote:

What am I trying to accomplish? I believe I did accomplish it. I saw a transcript of a speech I thought should be viewed by others, and I posted it where others would view it.

Lee: Do you have an explanation for why I believe in government for the people, and you believe in “Government-stay out”?

Perhaps because you think “government for the people” means gov’t should constantly intrude in our daily lives, and I don’t. I believe gov’t works best, when it governs least. I believe gov’t gets it’s authority from the People, rather than the People having to ask for gov’t permission. Whether that be owning “arms”, running a business, holding a demonstration … or many, many other things individuals do.

Lee: Can’t anyone go get one (gun) if they want to?

No, they can’t. They have to get permission from the gov’t. And even then, they are limited in what guns they can get. Both of which are contrary to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically says gov’t can’t “infringe” on our right to own “arms”. And Constitutional scholars agree it has nothing to do with the National Guard (which didn’t even exist until after WWII).

btw – Contrary to how it’s usually shown, the Second Amendment was ratified with only one comma: “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 other two commas usually shown (after “Militia” and “Arms”) is due to being where most people take a breath. Like in the Pledge of Allegiance where there’s not actually a comma in “under God indivisible” in the original – but it’s where people pause to take a breath, so a comma is mistakenly added after “God”. Just an interesting tidbit of information.

Lee: It’s my understanding that the war couldn’t start until the people were organized by recruiter type people.

Have you forgotten the wars previously fought on this continent? Americans were already “organized” in local militias, to protect the colonies and fight alongside the British regulars. IE; The French-Indian War. The Revolution didn’t start until the British (and their mercenaries) came to seize the arsenals at Lexington/Concord. Until the British threatened the colonists’ safety, the colonists had been content to try “peaceful resolutions” through diplomacy.

Lee: And I disagree with some of the assumptions you proclaim, like I have an undying, unborn right to defend myself against anyone who threatens my life or liberty.

Of course, that’s a misstatement. If you really disagreed with your right to defend your liberty, you wouldn’t care what goes on with our gov’t. What you disagree with is the use of force to defend yourself. And if you’d rather die than use force to defend yourself, that’s your choice. But you have no right to force that choice on others.

Lee: Constant Persistent Nonviolent types of action is the answer. The Law.

And what is the answer when “the Law” is the problem? When the People can’t get it changed? When the courts override the decision of the People, based on the judges’ beliefs? When gov’t passes laws so vague, or so complex, or so many of them … that you can’t avoid breaking the law? I guess, to you, that means we should just give up and go along. I have a saying I use: The Founders gave us 4 boxes to protect our liberties. The “soap box”, the “ballot box”, the “jury box”, and the “cartridge box”. When … note “WHEN” ... gov’t ignores the first 3, it’s time to use the 4th.

As to your other questions:

Voting machines … I don’t believe I ever said I didn’t see a problem with electronic voting. I have said that there isn’t a problem, IF there’s proper “backup”. IE; a paper trail, or some unique security such as retina scans or fingerprints which identifies specific voters and can’t be faked. I’ve also said I prefer going back to polling places, rather than mail-in ballots.

REALID … I’ve read it, and didn’t see anything that most states don’t already require for their driver’s license.

And I’ve said I don’t think the media should be “calling” any election, until all the votes are counted. You act like it’s a new issue, I guess you’ve forgotten that “Dewey Won”. But, even after the popular vote is counted, we don’t have a winner until the electoral college votes.

I’d love to see a copy of that post of me saying we should get a militia together (in Jeffers Gardens) to root out terrorists. But I think you’re making it up, because I’ve never endorsed such a thing.

As to what I post about … I’ll post about anything I damn well feel like. Who are you to tell me what I should post about “as an American”? I don’t tell you what to post about, so give me the same courtesy … or don’t read my posts, if you think I’m posting too much about threats to the Bill of Rights or Second Amendment. It’s Tryan’s site. If he thinks I’m posting “the wrong material”, I’m sure he’ll tell me.

4 On Jul 2, 11:14 am, Lee wrote:

Walter: As to what I post about … I’ll post about anything I damn well feel like. Who are you to tell me what I should post about “as an American”? ——I didn’t mean to imply that I don’t enjoy most of your posts. I truly was trying to understand what you meant, but, as you said, you reposted. I think you are a better writer and have better ideas than the article.

I shouldn’t have said…. “why don’t you post about vote fraud” or whatever.” I got carried away with the panic I felt last night about what concerns me. Sorry.

Seriously walter, I don’t want it to come to the cartridge box, for many reasons. If someone was clearly trying to violate or hurt one of mine, I would use whatever means called for to save them.

I want to encourage exhausting every means possible to save our country from fascism, but people have to get on the same page. You might not even think fascism is the problem. You may think government regulation to save the enviornment, or taxation of mega-corporations is the a problem, or the murder of David Koresh at Waco, or Ruby Ridge is what you want to focus on.

5 On Jul 2, 11:27 am, Lee wrote:

UN-What UN? Where does John Bolton fit into this? Can you find a news article on this recent United Nations meeting and who said what?

Usually “United Nations” is a buzz word to inflame certain people. I do understand that John Bolton is an S.O.B. and is trying to assume too much power within the UN. He is one of those who hates the UN and yet Bush made him ambassador in a recess appointment because his appointment couldn’t get out of committee. Condi wouldn’t provide needed documents so they could determine exactly what he would be up to, or who he is. He’s a hot-headed authoritarian. (mentally ill)

Got anymore info on the UN wanting to disarm the world?

6 On Jul 2, 12:20 pm, Lee wrote:

Here’s what cnn has————
Monday, June 26, 2006 Posted: 0659 GMT (1459 HKT)

UNITED NATIONS (AP)—Bearing a message from the Russian who invented the world’s most common assault rifle, activists will press governments at a U.N. conference on small arms to ensure such weapons are not used to trample human rights.

The groups and some officials attending the conference that begins Monday advocate a fundamentally new approach for trade in the light arms that are said to kill 1,000 people a day: Governments must take responsibility for all weapons they sell, even after the deal is done.

Such a philosophy applies to weapons of mass destruction, but not to small arms, and it will be the focus of much debate at the two-week conference.

“It’s a bit of a challenge for governments, because they haven’t been previously thinking about it in that way,” said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms, which joins Oxfam and Amnesty International in proposing the so-called “Global Principles” for small arms sales.

Britain’s government has made a similar proposal and 11 African nations signed on in a meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, in April. The United States, China, Russia, Egypt, India and others have not explicitly endorsed it.

The U.S. says it supports the British idea in principle. But U.S. Ambassador John Bolton made clear Washington does not want the conference to go beyond a program adopted in 2001 to curb the illicit sale of pistols, assault rifles, machine guns and other light weapons.

“We don’t see any need for treaties or agreements coming out of this,” Bolton said.

Many governments agree illicit arms traders have exploited loopholes in the program and delegates need to come up with new ways of reinforcing it.

Global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion (euro3.2 billion) a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal, according to the annual Small Arms Survey, an authoritative report on such weapons. The arms cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year.

“We are often concerned about weapons of mass destruction, and yet most of the killing taking place today, whether in Darfur or Congo or elsewhere, is done by small arms,” U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Friday.

Gun control advocates got a boost from Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the assault rifle that bears his name, who sent a statement to the conference expressing dismay that the weapon he invented is the weapon of choice in conflicts around the globe.

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups fear the conference could serve as a springboard to an international treaty to curb private ownership of small arms.

They also believe it will embolden regimes that violate human rights to disarm their citizens and make popular uprisings against oppression impossible.

“Ultimately, they’re offering a form of government support that makes government the only way citizens can seek protection, and Americans choke on that,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.

The NRA Web site is hosting a campaign that erroneously claims the conference will take place July 4 (the U.N. will be closed that day) and that it aims to take away their guns. The meeting’s agenda relates only to the illegal trade in small arms.

Human rights advocates hope the conference will build momentum for a treaty to apply the “Global Principles” to trade in all weapons, including warplanes, tanks and attack helicopters.

However, they deny any grand conspiracy, saying the conference will help governments in Latin America and Asia that have no gun laws think more responsibly about the small arms trade.

The principles would be nonbinding, but would enable governments and civic groups to call violators more easily to account, said Colby Goodman, an advocate for Amnesty International USA.

7 On Jul 2, 05:50 pm, Tryan Hartill wrote:

REALID … I’ve read it, and didn’t see anything that most states don’t already require for their driver’s license.

How can you see nothing wrong with the Real ID Act?

This is the scariest phrase:

They will have “common machine-readable technology”....

Could these be Contactless Chips ?

Conspiracy theorists and civil libertarians, fear not. The U.S. government will not use radio-frequency identification tags in the passports it issues to millions of Americans in the coming years.
Instead, the government will use “contactless chips.”
The distinction is part of an effort by the Department of Homeland Security and one of its RFID suppliers, Philips Semiconductors, to brand RFID tags in identification documents as “proximity chips,” “contactless chips” or “contactless integrated circuits”—anything but “RFID.”

And why do we want to give the Federal Government more power? This will open the door to all kinds of shady activity and technology that we don’t even know about yet.
The stuff we do know about is too scary for me.

8 On Jul 3, 07:41 am, Walter Richards wrote:

This is the scariest phrase:

They will have “common machine-readable technology”....

Have you looked at the back of your DL? Most states already use “machine-readable technology” on their IDs. And it was there before the RealID Act.

9 On Jul 3, 08:59 pm, Tryan Hartill wrote:

So you honestly think that there will not be RFID chips in Federal ID’s?

10 On Jul 4, 06:13 am, Walter Richards wrote:

The RealID act doesn’t address federal ID … it tells states what is required in their ID’s. And states are currently using optical or magnetic readable information. They aren’t gonna spend the money to replace those (cheap) with the (expensive) RFID technology, for quite some time.

And I’d be willing to bet it’s relatively easy to “jam” RFID, since it’s such a low-power, close-range system.

11 On Jul 5, 08:24 pm, Tryan Hartill wrote:

Well in Oct they are putting them in all new Passports, and RFID is VERY cheap, hence why they can be put on millions of packages for pennies a piece.

Don’t let your view on immigration cloud your thinking on this Act.
Our country is headed in a very dangerous direction and Mexicans coming across our Southern border will be the very least of our problems.

12 On Jul 6, 07:44 am, Walter Richards wrote:

It’s cheap to put the “reflector” on/in packages. But the equipment to read it is more expensive than the other two.

From personal experience … the hospital’s time badges use RFID proximity chips … it’s easily broken. If the badge gets bent too much, the “circuitry” breaks – before there are any outward signs of damage. So if the passports are still gonna be “book” form, the chips won’t last too long.

And my problem with passports, is needing one to get back into this country in the first place … RFID or not. If they don’t care about millions of illegals pouring across the border, why are Americans returning home treated as such a threat?

Post A Comment

(required)

(required but not displayed)



(No HTML, Textile only please. Live comment preview below.)

this is not Spam.

preview

:

Jan 6, 06:03 am


Previous Article:
« Flag Burning Amendments.....What a waste of time

Next Article:
Winning hearts and minds with slogans »

NCO Reader Comments


lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
SARA (What to do in Astoria on New Years Eve....)
Alexa Manning (What does the Federal Government Do with our Taxes?)
cnabas (New Tillamook and Clatsop County Blog)
pasgettaorri (The Vote 2006!)
pasgettaorri (The Vote 2006!)
connie (Focus on 49: BOCC work session grapples with difficult legislature)
Delores (Focus on 49: BOCC work session grapples with difficult legislature)
Kristen Molina (North Coast AA Round Up Seaside April 4th 5th 6th 2008)
Madonna Carr (What does the Federal Government Do with our Taxes?)
Wallace Kennedy (More D.A. Talk)
Ollie Woodward (Fort George Brewery Coming Alive)
Augustine Sweet (CCFOG - First report on Lee recall petition signatures)
Glynn Oconnor (A gun show ... without guns ?)
Lorne Riley (notes from Clean Slate PAC meeting 2/13/07)
Clare Ruiz (Durban Group Discusses Carbon Trading and LNG in Astoria)
Stewart Hernandez (Random News For Friday)
Johnna Acosta (Measure 50....Healthy Kids...Cigarette Taxes)

Recent Articles

View All Articles...

Feeds



Home | Archives | Contribute | Back to Top
Take What You Want 2009 NorthCoastOregon.com unless otherwise indicated.
Please email us with any questions or comments.
Site created by Upspring Design.