On Sunday, the Minister Louis Farrakhan continued his 52-week sermon series entitled, “The Time and What Must Be Done.” In his third installment, the Nation of Islam leader tackled gun control and his views on a “volatile” U.S. populace. He claimed that the American people are increasingly unhappy with their government and that they are simultaneously arming for war. In addition to making these observations and accusations, Farrakhan dismissed the modern-day application of the Second Amendment as well as the need — and right — for Americans to arm themselves.
“Look at the American peoples’ thoughts about Congress. What is the percentage of the American people that feel that the U.S. Congress is doing a good job. Eleven percent,” he said. “Then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying.”
“See, the right to bear arms was given at a time when there was no regulated militia to protect America,” he said. “But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops.” -- The Blaze.com
So, does Farrakhan have a legitimate point? Let me start at the end of the quote listed above when he espoused his view of history as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. Is the right to bear arms only extended to State militia or was it meant to extend to the individual. Liberal politicians have used this tired excuse for decades. So, what was the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment? To get to this question we look to the Federalist papers of the founding fathers though last week another famous Reverend (Jesse Jackson) indicated that the 2nd Amendment was so the founders could defend slavery.
Alexander Hamilton (you know the dude on the $20 dollar bill) wrote:
"That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
According to Farrkhan, 89% of Americans are are angry at their government! Would it not be logical that Hamilton's example bolded above is directly relevant?
"then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying"
Hamilton was even more specific here:
"[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"
The main question I pose as it relates to Farrakhan and HIS motivation to disarm Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights is -- what does he gain? He obviously relates that in today's times: “But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops." He appears to be enamored with those entrusted to our defense as adequate to deny individuals the necessity to take up arms.
But is he really? "In 2007, the Nation of Islam’s Akbar Muhammad (aka Larry 4X Prescott) appeared at a Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) meeting with Siraj Wahhaj, reportedly “to deliver a passionate speech defending convicted cop killer Jamil Alamin." -- RealCourage dot Org
Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam side with a killer of cops.
I think we can safely assume that Farrakhan is NOT enamored with the criminal justice system (police) or the State troopers nor the National Guard or Federal Troops. You see Farrakhan and his followers are also anti-US Government. The quote above from realcourage.org ends with the following information:
"In 2007, the Nation of Islam’s Akbar Muhammad (aka Larry 4X Prescott) appeared at a Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) meeting with Siraj Wahhaj, reportedly “to deliver a passionate speech defending convicted cop killer Jamil Alamin.” (Siraj Wahhaj has also been vice president of ISNA, has called for replacement of the U.S. government with an Islamic caliphate, and spoke at the July 4, 2009 ISNA convention in Washington DC.)
According to supporters of Jamil Alamin, MANA’s call for an alliance of “indigenous Muslims in America” “initiative began almost two years ago when Imam Jamil Al-Amin made a call for the formation of such an alliance.” In October 2009, when reported Jihad plotter Luqman Ameen Abdullah was killed in a shootout in Michigan, the FBI criminal complaint regarding members of the Masjid Al-Haqq’s role as part of the “The Ummah” was as follows - “Their primary mission is to establish a separate, sovereign Islamic state (‘The Ummah’) within the borders of the United States, governed by Sharia law. The Ummah is to be ruled over by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rapp Brown, who is currently serving a life sentence in the Florence, Colorado Supermax for shooting two police officers in Georgia.” MANA’s Ihsan Bagby disputed this FBI report and indicated that while members of “The Ummah” were “anti-government,” they did not promote violence.
Of course Farrakhan doesn't want you to be armed because it runs contradictory to his visions of an Islamic Caliphate in the US that replaces our government.
So, I know that I am definitely one of the 89% displeased and angry of this blossoming tyrannical ruling party of the modern Democrats as well as RINO's who, on a daily basis, have "betrayed it's constituents", but the question is, are you?