Why do ‘foreigners’ understand freedom better than native-born Americans?

In General Information on February 6, 2013 at 10:52 am

“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when all other rights have failed.” Henson Ong


On 28 January 2013, Henson Ong addressed a Working Group Public Policy Hearing in Hartford, Connecticut. Ong, an engineer by profession, stressed that he is a ‘legal immigrant’ and an ‘American By Choice’. A video of Ong’s statement may be found here:

Phyne Dyning is publishing a transcript of Ong’s remarks because, while Ong does commendable work with English, there are portions within his address that are a bit difficult to understand without repetition.

I’ll not offer much in the way of commentary, except to say that Mr. Ong ‘gets’ it. Unlike the infestation thriving under the Washington DC Puzzle Dome, the Messiah-in-Chief, or Sauron Feinstein, Ong understands the Second Amendment and its purpose. He not only knows history, he remembers history. He probably ‘gets’ it because he was not in a state-mandated, drugged coma during his education and because we tend to be drawn to ‘forbidden’ things…like the concept that self-defense is a G-d given right, not a privilege allowed or regulated by government.


Moderator: “Henson Onj? Followed by [redacted for brevity]


Ong: Yeah. Um. My name is Henson Ong. Forgive me. English is not my first language.

I am a legal immigrant and I am an American by choice. Thank you for giving me

this opportunity to express my opinion and give my testimony in opposition to the

majority of the proposed bills, which do nothing to deter future crimes.


Gun control does not work. Your own history is replete with, um, high school

rifle teams (and) Boy Scout marksmanship merit badges. You could buy rifles

at the hardware store. You could order them, mail order, delivered to your home.

Your country was awash with readily available firearms and ammunition. And

yet, in your past, you did not have mass school shootings.


Other people have already expressed the question, “What changed?”


It was not that the availability of guns suddenly exploded or it increased. It

actually decreased. What was changed was societal decay.


If gun control actually did work, 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.


Now, um. Some people have asked, um and, called the AR-15. They called the

AR-15 ‘a weapon of mass killing’. Well, it turns out there are a few government

agencies which disagree with that characterization.


The Department of Homeland Security has stated that a rifle chambered in

five fifty-six NATO, with a thirty round magazine, is suitable for personal

defensive use. I have documentation on that. It is HSCEMS-1212-00011,

‘Solicitation for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency’.


Now, who needs an AR-15 with thirty round mags? That question has also been

brought up. And I would like to put forward that, had the Koreans in the LA riots

not had AR-15s and AK-47s with thirty round magazines, and Ruger 30s, their

businesses would have been burned to the ground like all of the other businesses

in their neighborhoods. Theirs stood because they stood their ground.


I would also put forward the conjecture that, had the ten thousand students at

Tienanmen Square not been unarmed, things may not have resulted in so many

of them disappearing.


[warning bell ‘ding’ for time]


In your own laws, United States versus Miller, 309, US174, 1939, it was made

clear that the type of firearms protected by the Second Amendment, were those

specifically used by 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’.


In Lewis…


Moderator: Mr. Ong. If you would please wrap up.


Ong: In Lewis versus United States 1980 it is stated that, ‘the Second Amendment

guarantees no right to keep and bear no firearm that does not have some

reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated

militia’. It has nothing to do with hunting.


The militia, as per the debates in the (Constitutional) Convention, shows plainly

enough that it is composed of all males physically capable of acting in concert

for common defense. And further, that ordinarily, when called for service, these

men were expected to appear, bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind

in common use at the time.


Moderator: Mr. Ong, if you would…


Ong: The AR-15 is the most common and popular rifle in America at the current time.


[warning bell ‘ding’ for time]


Moderator: Would you please wrap up.


Ong: I will wrap up. I would like to wrap up with a statement from Judge Andrew Kozinski in Silveira versus Lockyer, uh 2003: ‘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 crimes 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 when all other rights have failed. A free people can only afford to make this mistake once.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: