Following Bill Stevens’ passionate defense of the Second Amendment at the Connecticut State Capitol at a public hearing on gun violence, legal immigrant Henson Ong gave his testimony. Ong recited America’s own history with guns and gun control and declared that the problem of mass shootings was not the availability of guns, but rather the change that has brought about such things was “societal decay.”
This is another video that deserves five minutes of your time. You will be cheering him on!
Ong, who says that English is not his first language, spoke rather eloquently and poignantly to the issue of guns and morality. Most telling was his elaboration on our own history with firearms.
Most readers will appreciate the way he introduced himself, “I am a legal immigrant and an American by choice.” His statement received a round of applause.
He said that his opposition to the proposed bills was because they would “do nothing to deter future crimes.”
Ong then launched into schooling the elected representatives before him.
“Gun control does not work,” he said. “Your own history is replete with high school rifle teams, Boy Scout marksmanship merit badges. You could buy rifles at the hardware stores. You could mail order them, delivered to your home. Your country was awash in readily available firearms and ammunition, and yet in your past you did not have mass school shootings…..what changed? It was not the availability of guns suddenly exploded or increased. It actually was decreased. What was changed was societal decay.”
Again, more applause took place as he made the statement about “societal decay.”
“If gun control actually did work,” Ong continued, “Washington D.C. and Chicago would be the safest cities in your nation, but it is not. They have the toughest gun laws and the highest crime and murder rates.”
Ong cited that there are some people who refer to the AR-15 as a “weapon of mass killing,” which undoubtedly was a stab at elected representatives like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein and other anti-Second Amendment domestic enemies. He then proceeded to turn the tables on them by stating, “There are a few government agencies which disagree with that characterization.” He spoke of the recent solicitation by the Department of Homeland Security concerning select fire rifles that are chambered in 5.56 NATO, which the AR-15 was based on, with a thirty round magazine is “suitable for personal defense use.” He then cited the particular solicitation number for these weapons by DHS.
Ong then addressed the question, “Who needs an AR-15 with thirty round mags?” His argument was one I have made and that was to bring attention to the Koreans during the LA riots, who took up arms against the looters when the police abandoned them. They did so in order to protect themselves, their families and neighbors, businesses and property.
Had they not had AR-15s, AK-47s and Rugers, “Their businesses would have burned to the ground like other businesses in their neighborhoods,” said Ong. Instead, “Their’s stood, because they stood their ground.”
Ong then took a piece of history from the other side of the world, specifically Tiananmen Square. He said, “Had the 10,000 students at Tiananmen Square not been unarmed, things may not have resulted in so many of them disappearing.” Obviously he is speaking of them being openly killed.
“In your own laws, United States v. Miller,” Ong continued, “it was made clear that the type of firearms protected by the Second Amendment were those specifically useful and common for military use, in defense of the state. I would like to note that the state is not the government. The state is the people.”
Again, applause erupted from those attending.
“In Lewis v United States 1980,” he added, “it is stated that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear firearms that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well armed, regulated militia. It has nothing to do with hunting. The militia spurred debates in the (Constitutional) Convention shows plainly enough that it is composed of all males physically capable from acting in concert for common defense and further that ordinarily, when called for service these men were to appear bearing arms, supplies by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time.”
Though the moderator attempted to interrupt Ong, he continued, “The Ar-15 is the most common and popular rifle in America.”
He then concluded with a statement by Judge Andrew Kozinski in the case Silveira v. Lockyer:
“My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime usually do, but few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed. A free people can only afford to make this mistake once.”
Once again applause erupted from the crowd.
It’s amazing to have to be taught our history by a legal immigrant isn’t it? I send out major “props” to Mr. Ong! You Sir are the kind of immigrants that America needs and desires within her borders. You came legally. You have established a home and you know and cherish and love the land that you live in and you believe in her ideals. Perhaps Mr. Ong should run for one of the elected representatives seats that he addressed.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/legal-immigrant-schools-gun-grabbers-in-connecticut-on-gun-history-in-america/#ixzz2KQNdjeyr
One thought on “Legal Immigrant Schools Gun Grabbers In Connecticut On Gun History In America”
Mr. Ong cleaned their Glock, I mean clock.