Home / Gun Ownership / Month-Old Video Suddenly Goes Viral: Defend Gun Ownership
Print Friendly and PDF

Month-Old Video Suddenly Goes Viral: Defend Gun Ownership

Written by Gary North on February 25, 2013

This video sat unwatched on YouTube for a month. The speaker was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland who lost the race.

Without warning, this video of a farewell speech got almost 250,000 hits. He thinks it is because anti-gun legislation in Maryland is close to confiscatory.

This indicates that gun owners are ready to resist such laws. The politicians in some states may think they have the upper hand. They do not.

The Second Amendment crowd is large and growing. It is getting far more hard core.

The anti-gun politicians, including Obama, would be wise to re-read their worn copies of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. They have forgotten Alinsky’s operating principle: The action is the reaction. The action is anti-gun legislation. The reaction is a nation-wide rush to buy guns and ammo.

Continue Reading on www.theblaze.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

44 thoughts on “Month-Old Video Suddenly Goes Viral: Defend Gun Ownership

  1. http://youtu.be/_52pMg8qQcc

    Canadians are insane to let their govt. take their guns

  2. America was and is insane to elect Obama gain…

  3. "Don't co-opt their language!" Well said! But, I wonder if the entire idea of the God-given right to bear arms, secured by the Constitution isn't a case of doing just that. Think about it, the Constitution makes no mention of God (except possibly as the paper's time keeper) and the Bible makes no mention of rights. Instead the Bible is all about responsibilities.

    Could it be that the entire idea of rights has been a bill of goods that have helped sell us down the river? Rights are optional, responsibilities (such as bearing arms in defense of ourselves, family, and neighbors–1 Timothy 5:8, etc.)–are non-optional.

    Which is more easily infringed, licensed, and limited: optional rights or non-optional responsibilities.

    For more, see "Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/rights-rig…. Then see "You Can't Win Bringing a Knife [the Second Amendment] to a Gunfight."

  4. Verbicide – look at "Why Johnny Can't Read: And What You Can Do About It"

  5. mary Holman says:

    I believe that Ted Weiland's message is one we need to hear, Seems we often get part of it right, but the most important element of the issue is off target that greatly lessens the value of the statement. Only in God's Word will we find freedom.
    Mary Holman

  6. The argument that rights are optional is true, but so are the duties and responsibilities that God gave you that grants those rights. Both are optional because it is a matter of free will. Will you choose to obey God by carrying out your duties and responsibilities and exercising your rights or choose to disobey God by not doing so.

    "Shall not be infringed" is an extremely clear phrase with absolutely no wiggle room, as clear as any Bible passage. Yet it is infringed upon and even ignored, how? Why? Simple, it is because bad leaders choose to ignore law just as they will ignore and twist the Bible in a tyrannical theocracy that will fall as it has every other time in history. It is bad leaders that is the problem and the apathy of people who put them there, not our Constitution and form of government as the Christian Founding Fathers intended it to be. Theses same people will destroy the theocracy you propose even faster, while the Christian Founding Father’s government has stood their assaults for over 200 years, God, giving us time to fix it if we as men will govern ourselves, instead of expecting or leaving government to do it for us as a theocracy would have it.

  7. “Rights” as in such as those recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men. These are God given, inalienable rights granted by the duties and responsibilities God has given us in Scripture. Some examples are Gen. 1:26 were we are given dominion over the earth and all that is in it and “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1st Tim. 5:8). Providing means such things as security, food, shelter, etc, so from these passages we see our right to self defense and to bear arms, property rights and security of property etc. Everyone of our true rights can be found in Scripture like this.

  8. Before God, in our vertical relationship what we call “rights” are necessary parts of duties and responsibilities He has given us. Yet before Him, we do have rights, but a different type of rights. As sons of the living God and “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) we have the right to pension Him in prayer (John 14:14). We have all the covenants, birthrights, and promises we can claim as ours with the rights and privileges they include. We also have the right to lose and bind as found in:
    "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

  9. Texas Chris says:

    Americans have been under gun control since 1930's. The Federal Firearms Act severely restricts what you can and cannt buy in the US.

    Totally unconstitutional, yet 100% enforced by the ATF.

  10. Texas Chris says:

    Ted is incorrect in that we DO have clear, definable rights. Yes, we also have responsibilities, but that does not diminish the existence of rights.

  11. "…The Scriptures provide no evidence of God-given (or unalienable) rights. Even life and liberty are not rights, but rather responsibilities delegated by Yahweh. Of course, rights are much more popular than responsibilities. Everyone, including homosexuals and infant murderers, demand their rights, but few are interested in fulfilling their responsibilities.

    "The Puritan idea of rights and liberty was quite different from what the framers had in mind:

    'John Winthrop [first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony] … reminded his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts that a doctrine of civil rights [as in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights] which looked to natural or sinful man as its source and guardian [as in the Preamble] was actually destructive of that very liberty which they were seeking to protect. True freedom can never be found in institutions which are under the direction of sinful men, but only in the redemption wrought for man by Jesus Christ. Christ, not man, is the sole source and guarantee of true liberty.' (C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) p. 19.)

    "R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom:

    '….[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.' (Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581.)…."

    For more, see online Chapter 11 "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline….

  12. See my posts below

  13. I agree Chris. We are sons of the living God, co-heirs with Christ, not mere slaves. Being that we are sons, children of God, do indeed have rights. Thanks for the post Chris!

  14. Chris, any rights as sons of God (I prefer to look at them at gifts, which puts the emphasis on God instead of ourselves) has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, which, for the most part, are both antithetical and hostile to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality, as I demonstrate by comparing the two in "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline….

  15. Thanks, Ted, for bringing a Biblical perspective to this. It's easy to get caught up in political speech and go after what seems to be good…the Bible really DOES rub the cat's fur the wrong way, doesn't it? 🙂 BTW–David (capital D) and I are two different people. 🙂

  16. The argument of inalienable rights vs. duties and responsibilities is both false and hollow. It is solely based on the straw man that rights are optional while these God given duties and responsibilities are not optional. One; this concept would nullify the well excepted Christian doctrine of Freewill. God is not going to tie us up and drag us screaming into heaven. Each day we must make a choice whether to obey God or not. Over and over in the Bible God has said “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:14-15). Second; those who espouse this idea put forth no scripture showing the concept of inalienable rights as being unbiblical. Third; the very scripture they put forth refutes their own argument. Rightly they say they show us our God given duties and responsibilities, but it is in these very scriptures that we are granted our inalienable rights.

  17. Additionally if we come together to pool our resources in order to fulfill our obligations such as to provide safety and protection through our local police, militia, and neighborhood watch. If these were to became so proficent as to lower the crime rate to Mayberry standards. Then gun fatalities are primarily accidental shootings the question will be asked why are we allowing such deaths, it is irresponsible to have private gun ownership. At this point what argument do you have, since your duties and responsibilities have and are being fulfilled? None. But thankfully God did not set things up this way, for all institutions whether government, public or private, are made with men's imperfect minds and hands. Thus they will succumb to corruption and the use of tyranny, no matter how much scriptures they codify into their laws. The only safe guard for society, for our liberty, prosperity, and welfare, is that citizen practice their inalienable rights in fulfillment of their God given duties and responsibilities in accordance with their convictions of faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else save for God above.

  18. I voted for Bongino. The Communists have a stranglehold on the Beltway and Annapolis areas. Wonder why he lost? Ask the unions.


  19. Dan Bongino is a BRAVE and TRUE Patriot! I saw this video about a week back and forwarded it to many and also JOINED his site as I will back him- ANYTIME/ANYWHERE!

  20. I wish he had won his campaign for the Senate. We need more like him there and less of the feckless types we have there now.

  21. He was not elected, The SOB stole the election and the GOP is to slow to react. This illegal POTUS should be arrested, jailed for 20 yrs and then deported to Kenya.

  22. NoMoreMarxistsInDC says:

    The Constitution is about "responsibilities" that the government must follow. It is a shackle on government, no We the People. The Constitution was based on the Ten Commandments–God given rights!

  23. bmwheeler says:

    What is a right wing nut job? One who wants his God given rights.
    according to left-wing nut jobs

  24. kartua28 says:

    The only thing to do is to stop voting for the same old tired Parties. Go for the Libertarian Party – for liberty!

  25. The responsibilies of protecting ourselves, our families and those unable to protect themselves has always been with us. The 2nd Amendment just gives us the right to possess the best tools with which to meet our responsibilities. Without it we would literally be reduced to bringing a knife (or a rock or a baseball bat) to a gunfight.

  26. Carol Goodwin says:

    God gave mankind "free will" so we were created a "willful" people. Who is BHO to think he can take away our "will"! With this we are blessed with "Won't" power as well. I WON'T accept the tyranny of a spoiled brat! This is all Obama is. A spoiled brat! He must be arrested for high crimes against this entire country. Until this happens, we must stand tall and keep strong our FREE WILL as creations of God almighty and keep our faith intact.

  27. skipfoss says:

    When are we going to get this limey bastard out of this country he has no right what so ever to say anything about anything about what we have in our homes . This son of a bitch needs to shut up and go some where the give a damn what he say's

  28. fireladybetty says:

    you go Dan you should have run against obama. maybe we would have some one fighting for the people and AMERICA.

  29. Easy there, Texas Chris. The NFA only restricts the right to own a small subset of firearms, and it is no more ‘restrictive’ than most other prohibitive laws. Anyone who can pass a NICS check can acquire a machine gun by completing a Form 4, if they have the money and the time, and their State allows it. Yes, some of the restrictions (such as those on silencers – OK, suppressors, and SBR’s) are inane. Unconstitutional? Well, yes, but the ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’ ship sailed long ago, and no amount of posturing will ever bring it back. An armed revolt, perhaps. But that’s never going to happen – nor should it. We need to educate people, and help them vote out the people who want to destroy the Constitution. And education starts with valid arguments.

    It’s really the State’s ‘Rights,’ as enumerated in the 10th Amendment, that can restrict (prohibit) the ownership of Class III firearms. The NFA itself cannot, as long as one is not otherwise prohibited (felon, adjudicated mentally ill, etc.)

    The 2nd Amendment refers to the right of ‘The People,’ and in the time of the Founders, ‘The People’ was a restrictive clause, in and of itself. The NFA certainly complicates the ownership of things like select-fire weapons, and it taxes them, but it doesn’t restrict their ownership of such weapons, other than to those who fail the test of being one of ‘The People.’

    The real evil of the NFA is in its REGISTRATION of ownership, which is clearly an infringement on law-abiding citizens.

    For the record, I own four NFA firearms, and an Endowment Member of the NRA.

  30. Harvey J Rowe says:

    This all very nice, but until there is a vision, mission and strategic plan with conservative groups participating, we are all blowing smoke. We need a leader or two to rally around and get big numbers to move this lying group destroying our country.HJR

  31. IamaproudAmerica says:

    Even in uber liberal California, we are buying lots of guns and ammo. The gun store shelves and displays are bare and people want more guns and ammo.
    Obama and other Libs don't understand Americans, the Second Amendment, the constitution or bill of rights.

    They are awakening a sleeping giant.

  32. Carl Benander says:

    A Whacko grandmother just shot her 2 grandchildren. So, the liberals say to give up all the handguns-makes sense-dorsn't it? But, oh yes, the really "progressive" liberals say, " cut down on the bullets. A single shot handgun would be OK?

  33. THANK YOU for posting this!!!!! It needs much more EXPOSURE!!!! I will FW to my address book and post it on all the sites I can comment on. Hope everyone will do the same. Being a gunless older than dirt lady living 17 miles from the border it's very comforting to know there are militia in so. ca.

  34. Amen!

  35. denny just asking says:

    check out why the gov,t is giving fully automatic AR 15,s to local police dept. Coon Rapids mn police recieved 72 of these rifles what are they preparing for? good question that needs to be answered.

  36. So where's my comment to Rabelrouser?????????

  37. The police in Coon Rapids are probably going to shoot rabid coons, what else would they need them for? Unless it is to back up Obablers dictatorship!

  38. Mutantone says:

    Sadly he lost the election. That says legion of what the real problem is.

  39. merrilie says:

    Dan Bongino your message needs to be heard and acted upon !! If we do not learn from history what brought other Nations down as the saying goes " WE ARE BOUND TO REPEAT IT " and will suffer the same demise!! We have what no other country in history has ever had , Our foundation was built on Faith in God our Constitution ,Bil of Rights etc. was gained by much struggle,and determination, not to mention the heavy cost of life and treasure!!! When they came to an impasse they would stop and pray some times for days until the answers came!! We are indeed a Blessed Nation and there are so many of us that will not know it until it's gone !! So many are drunk on their own hedonism they won't even know what hit them, but we are not going to give up,how could we when we consider what all the generations before us gave!! God Help Us All, Amen

  40. Jim Kremsreiter says:

    Funny, I was brought up to believe every right has an equal responsibility. You say the bible doesn't mention rights but it also doesn't deny rights. Could it be that, if you follow and obey what the bible says, you therefore have "God given" rights? Sounds reasonable to me!

  41. Ruthdc4l says:

    No one stole the election. Obama won with a overwhelming majority. He won. Get over it.

  42. Sadly Ruth, you are correct. We are living in the ‘Age of Entitlement’ and there are far more votes to be bought there than can be bought from hard working, middle-class, tax-paying citizens like me.

  43. Good information. Lucky me I came across your website by acccident (stumbleupon).
    I have saved as a favorite for later!