Why Don’t You Come and Take It From Me?

gun-capital-buildingI have noticed a few comments on the site lately around the issue of the 2nd Amendment. I have never really addressed the issue directly on the site so I figure it is about time. I suppose the reason that I have not addressed the issue previously is because I saw it as so inane that I didn’t think about it much. When debating many political issues, I can usually at least understand the position of the opposite argument to me. But not on this one. I have still never run into a single logical debatable reason for the opposition’s stance. But I will give all of you the chance to give me one…

So the issue is gun control. Let me just put my belief out there in plain words: I don’t believe that the government should have the ability to even utter the words “gun control”. Those words should never even be allowed to cross their lips. I do not support any bans on any guns. I do support the government restricting known violent felons from owning a gun. I do support the government restricting the mentally ill from owning a gun. But the average American citizen… No ban, no control, nothing, ever. I don’t care if it is a slingshot or a bazooka or anything in between. No bans.

The Constitution is clear on this. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right to keep and bear “certain” arms or the right to keep and bear “whatever arms the government approves” arms. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. While all the gun control people out there try really hard to find a way to insert those italicized words into the argument, they are not in the constitution. And because they are not in the Constitution, your argument holds no weight with me.

not-about-guns-about-controlSo it would seem that since the words are not in the Constitution, this should be a dead argument right? Wrong. And why not? Because the government does not want it to be a dead argument. First of all, and this is a minor part of the equation, it is just such a good topic to keep groups polarized from one another so the two parties can chuckle and keep control. But second, and far more important, is the fact that the government wants the right to regulate what guns you can and cannot have so that they retain the distinct advantage over you should you act up.

I know I am sounding a little “Black Flaggish” here, but this is one area where I actually agree with him. Logic does not provide me with any other reason why the government would want to regulate guns in America. The Constitution says no regulation. Logic says banning guns has zero impact on the criminals that would use them in an improper way. Logic also says that when a 5 year old shoots their brother with a gun this is a case of parental negligence, not an excuse to take away guns from the population. So the only logical reason I can think of for government to support gun control is to limit the ability of the citizens to defend themselves from the government, who has no limits on their guns.

So some quick facts:

  • Republicans and Democrats hold different views on gun control. A 71% to 11% majority of Democrats favors “stricter” rather than “less strict” gun control, whereas Republicans are split 35% “stricter” to 35% “less strict” with 24% of Republicans and 13% of Democrats opting for “neither”
  • iraq-gunsOn June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that American citizens have an individual right to own guns, as defined by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In district of Columbia vs. Heller the Court stated that an absolute firearm ban was unconstitutional. The Court further determined that its decision in Heller does not impinge upon existing statutes and regulations, such as those that prohibit felons and the mentally-ill from owning or possessing firearms.
  • Martin Killias, in a study covering 21 countries, found that there were substantial correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates but no correlation between gun ownership and total suicide or homicide rates.
  • In an extensive series of studies of large, nationally representative samples of crime incidents, criminologist Gary Kleck found that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. Other research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons. 
  • There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the defending victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.
  • gun-flag-2ndThe most thorough analysis of the impact of gun control laws, by Kleck, covered 18 major types of gun control and every major type of violent crime or violence (including suicide), and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates.
  • a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws.
  • According to the CDC, when it comes to gun deaths, suicides account for 55 percent of deaths in the United States whereas homicides account for 40 percent of deaths, accidents account for three percent.
  • New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977. In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
  • Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
  • Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.—and each has or, in the cases of Detroit (until 2001) and D.C. (2008) had, a requirement for a licence on private handguns or an effective outright ban (in the case of Chicago).

All interesting and relevant information. I could go on with facts to back up my position all day so if you have the inclination to oppose me on this one, just know that. The key points in all of that information? The fact that gun control laws, restrictions, and regulations do absolutely nothing to stem violence or violent crime rates. 

criminals4gun-controlI made this point to a friend of mine a couple months ago and I started in with the facts. I then stated that when you make guns illegal, the only people with guns are the criminals. He began to get irate and said “Oh God, here we go again with that same old worn out gun rights statement. Haven’t you guys gotten over that statement yet? It simply doesn’t play well”. No I have not gotten past that statement. Because there is no argument that anyone can make to refute it. Gun control advocates hate that statement because they know it to be true. And they know that it effectively ends the debate the second they concede its correctness.

Many smart people through history have known why gun control was not OK. Thomas Jefferson said so often, stating that the right to bear arms is necessary for the citizens to protect themselves from the “tyranny in government”. And he was right then and the statement is right now. We talk about a revolution on this site. Believe me when I say that this is the reason why the government wants to control guns. It isn’t about lowering violence, the stats already tell them that won’t happen. The entire thing is a means to disarm those who would rise against government. 

So I say that there should be absolutely ZERO laws impacting the types of guns we can own, ZERO laws requiring the registration of firearms, ZERO laws requiring trigger locks or anything like them, ZERO laws that limit the right to carry a firearm concealed. 

people-controlA well armed population is the largest deterrent to crime we have seen on this planet. And given the way that this administration is going we may in fact need those guns to protect ourselves from the thieves in Washington. The Declaration of Independence said it best:

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

There it is in black and white. Of course the Declaration of Independence was talking about Britain, but it applies today to our own government, who is out of control. 

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

Comments

  1. I am a law abiding citizen.Neither I, nor the guns I own, will ever be a problem to anyone in government or to any other citizen of the country.On that basis I should be left out of any scheme to control guns.I am not part of the problem,therefore I can only conclude that when you want to restrict my ownership of guns that you have some agenda that you’re not telling me about.

    Now when someone takes a gun and uses it to intimidate the clerk at the corner grocery for the purpose of obtaing the cash in the cash drawer,that person no longer lives in the society that I reside in and that person should be removed from it post haste,either by a looooog incarceration ar by some sort of lethal injection,followed by burial.Preferably the latter as dead people don’t seem to be repeat offenders.Let’s reduce that part of the population that’s giving us all problems.

    As far as I’m concerned the Constitution gives me a right to keep and bear arms.Some say that this right is only if you belong to a militia.Should that be the case then let me sign on the dotted line.I’m more than willing to use myself and my guns to defend this country should the need arise.Make no mistake about that.

    Let me repeat it one more time so everyone involved will understand.I am a law abiding citizen and I am not part of the problem you are trying to solve when you pass gun control laws.These laws don’t work because criminals don’t obey laws.These criminals are the problem and they need to be dealt with in a manner that they will understand.They ruin society for the rest of us.They cost vast sums if money and time.They need to be removed from society permanently.After that there will be no need for gun control laws unless you in the government have been lying to me about your motives.

    • Michael Rourke says:

      Ron;

      I must agree with BF and you regarding this the second most important of our rights. The founding Fathers saw fit to put as the second basic right the only way to protect ourselves and our families from the “Tyranny over these States.” Try this link for the best tools for doing just that.

      http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php

      I know many people will claim I am a little on the paranoid side, but the Marine Corps trained me and my son to plan for peace and prepare for war.

      Semper Fi
      Michael

  2. Google HR 45, that should get your blood flowing. Also, HR 17, which I support and have written my elected officials to express so. And, I agree with the Author and Ron!

  3. About 10-11 yrs ago, a friend whom I often shot with lent me a book by John Ross entitled “Unintended Consequences”. In the authors own words, it’s a book about the “gun culture”. It literally changed my life. That is when I lost my political naivete and started paying attention to what the hell was happening and being done in our names. Not only a fantastic novel (I wonder if Vince Flynn got his idea for “Term Limits” from this – HA!) but an excellent study of gun laws and historically accurate FBI/ATF abuse. You will have steam coming out of your ears. You will know the book when you see it, an ATF agent is holding Justice on the floor with a “assault weapon” in her face, a la Elian Gonzalez. This book was worth the cash (hardcover only) just for the history of the gun laws and incidents of abuse; the story is just icing on the cake. You will probably finish the last 3rd (about 250 pgs) in one night – I have, twice!
    I don’t have any ties to Mr Ross, just want to let you all in on a “secret” we in the gun culture have had for years!

  4. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the N.O.P.D and other law enforcement agencies confiscated weapons of any kind by force. They actually held citizens at gunpoint and confiscated their guns…this was done while criminals were running rampant in the street committing hundreds of crimes…and they were armed. In one instance an elderly woman who had successfully fended off attempts at robbing her prior to the police confiscating her weapon was robbed and beaten shortly after the police left with her weapon. If you hold the illusion that the government will not do this, forget it. I know many of you would say that they would have to kill you to take your weapon, but if you were attempting to protect your family and the “authorities” showed up en mass with far superior firepower, would you subject your family to possible harm? That is a question you should ask yourself well in advance and be totally prepared to uphold your stance. I own several weapons and since it is just my wife and myself, would resist with every possible means from the “authorities” taking my weapons. If my grandaughter were present…I am not so sure I would risk her life though. The current Governor of Louisiana (Bobby Jindal) has stated in no uncertain terms that this type of action would never occur while he is in charge. I really want to believe that, but he is a politician…need I say more. That said, I really like what he has done thus far, but again he is a politician.

    • In New Orleans it is sometimes hard to distinguish between the criminals and the police.I’ve not read about Mr. Jindal making any inroads there.To be quite fair,I also haven’t read about any New Orleans police atrocities lately either,but these things seem to come in bunches when they start.

      • It is definitely hard to distinguish between the criminals and the politicians here…oh wait, in most instances they are one and the same!

      • esomhillholler says:

        Mr. Jindal will never makes inroads in N.O. because there is no help for it. Having lived there I can tell you that that place is the asshole of the nation. Just look at the Katrina Disaster. You didn’t see MS crying and whining about the gov’t. not helping them. What everyone failed to understand was that Katrina was a didaster unparalelled in the history of the nation. Hell, the place was 30 feet under water! I think Bush did a good a jab as could reasonably be expected. The blame should have gone completely to the mayor and the Gov. of LA.

        • You are totally correct with where the blame should be. And it is where a suppository would be administered if the world indeed had an asshole! I lived in a suburb of the mess (Harahan) and now live north of Lake Ponchartrain…

          • esomhillholler says:

            I lived in the N.O. Baptist Seminary where my father was in school. I had the dubious honor of going to school a Capdau Junior High. God, what a ghetto garbage dump! There are good people in and around N.O. it’s just that there are so many bad it kind of drowns them out. I particularly liked Kenner and Metarie where we went to church and spent a lot of time. I will also say in closing that the one thing they do have down there is some of the best dang food i’ve ever eaten!!

            • USWeapon says:

              Amen to that Karl. I could live in New Orleans just for the food. I will literally kill someone for some good bananas foster.

  5. By the way, if the NRA is a little too namby-pamby for you, check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (www.jpfo.org). These guys are what the ACLU is supposed to be, and you DO NOT have to be Jewish to join up, but having been on the other end of that gun due to confiscation, they know where-of they speak.

  6. Let me start by saying that my first instinct is to agree with you guys. In fact, I do agree, but there are two arguments that I have had a hard time refuting that I could use assistance on. I doubt anyone here would care about the arguments I am about to mention, but the average person would.

    I don’t have a gun at my house. I prefer to defend myself with a knife. My father is a gunsmith, he has a gun pretty much all the time, and he has my guns at his house. I recently moved to the country, and I will probably get the guns from him and move them to my new place. When I was in the city, I didn’t like the idea of secondary targets. Living in apartments and closely packed houses, it was too easy to imagine a shot going astray and hitting a neighbor. The odds are low, so I never criticized others for using guns for home defense, I just found that between my nightvision and my personal skills with a knife and an axe, it was the better option for me.

    The arguments I had a hard time with were concerning non-firearm weapons. I know how to make a variety of bombs. It is not hard to find out how, a bit of research could even lead to how to build a nuke. So, should individuals be allowed to have nuclear weapons? How about missiles or other massive weapons? How about chemical weapons? It is a slippery slope argument I know, and my thought is that the freedom is worth the risk, but that sort of thing is scary for most people. To think that it is legal for someone with no criminal record or diagnosed insanity to own a mass destruction weapon is a scary thought. There are a lot of crazy people with no clinical diagnosis, and a lot of people could get killed.

    Of course, any criminal could do the same things I am talking about, and no law would stop it. Buying plutonium might be tricky, whereas it might not be as hard to get if such things were legal, but ultimately, making such things illegal is not going to stop it from happening necessarily. It does come down to the fact that there is no use for such weapons other than to prevent tyranny or because “it’s cool”. Just wondering if the “making it illegal won’t make a difference” argument would be enough for most people.

    The other thing I had a hard time with was talking to some British gentlemen that I know who support the total gun ban in England. Guns are harder for criminals to get there because it is outlawed throughout the country, and they claim that the overall society is less violent. What do you say to that. I don’t live there, so I need something to back up my thoughts…

    • I read the english papers and there is a lot of crime there.It’s a myth that they’re a non-violent society.Gun crime is down because there is a lack of weapons,but it still happens.Not with the frequency of here though.We’re pretty far up on the list of violent nations.Not the worst though.

      The rest of your questions about knives,axes,bombs,and nuclear weapons,heavy artillery and whatever don’t make a lot of sense.I would imagine,if you were to check ,that bombs and nuclear weapons are pretty much illegal and don’t fit the description of arms covered by the constitution.I would guess the same holds true for artillery,and hand grenades.

      As for axes and knives,don’t bring them to a possible gun fight.Include tire irons and golf clubs in that category also.

      My personal choice is a 12 guage double with 21″barrels.I like bird shot because it lowers the risk of severely injuring bystanders and is lethal at close range.I’ve had the gun most of my lfe so am very familiar with it,which is of tantamount importance for a defense weapon.You don’t want to have to figure out how to use it if the need arises.

      • I know, don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. There are exceptions tho. By the time someone enters my house, I have them dead to rights at 15 paces with an 5 lb. double bladed throwing axe. And their buddy coming in the other entrance never heard a thing. I am better off using the weapon I am good with than using the more powerful weapon. All else being equal tho, I know the gun is generally the superior defensive weapon. If I had more than just myself and my fiance to take care of, I probably would switch to a gun.

    • Ok, I’ll take a “shot” at this, even if there are “holes” in my arguments.

      As for the first problem, I would offer this… Logical arguments, when pushed to the extreme often become illogical. To say that I cannot own any weapons at all because my owning a nuke is obviously unacceptable, is pushing that extreme. In the same way, “safety” is a good thing and the state could assign police to watch you 24/7 and you would be safe and others would be safe from you, but that too is an extreme and illogical. The same can be said of debt – a good thing when used appropriately, but bad when used in the extreme. The same idea applies to almost anything – sex, drugs, food, … Moderation and consideration of the circumstances is always relevant. The bottom line is using good judgment, just as you did in rejecting high powered weapons in close quarters – and I am not saying that government should dictate that specific limitation. Appropriate weapons in the hands of responsible people makes sense. In my opinion, bombs are not appropriate (yet).

      As for Britain being overall less violent because of gun control – that has to be a difficult thing to prove. Can we be certain that there would have been more violence without the gun bans? The statistics cited by USWeapon’s writeup suggest not. Some people may feel more secure under a ban without actually being more secure. In the least, for many people, we have to concede that logic cannot prevail over feelings. The burden of proof rests on those who assert that the ban results in less violence. The ban makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, but the impact of that on the number of violent crimes is still open to debate. Also, to be balanced against that, is the violence/crime that could have been avoided had victims been armed.

    • Black Flag says:

      Re: Nukes

      If the government (a gang of handsome criminals) can have nukes, so can I. When they lose theirs, then – maybe – I’d give up mine (PS: I don’t have a nuke – this is hypothetical).

      I have no problem with anyone having a nuke – it sorta takes care of itself, as it is beyond the price any individual could afford – a nuke program costs billions of dollars – probably more then even Billy could afford.

      Further, why would an individual, like me, want one? …only to balance the threat from a government who has one too. In fact, (pulling an argument from another thread) a group of people have the same rights as one person, the same logic nations have with each is the same argument a person has with a nation.

      Banning any weapon does not prevent its use. Obviously. The threat of evil use of weapons is already dealt with a doctrine of freedom – Clear and Present Danger – and there is no need to confound freedom to merely make more redundant laws when this one already measures the threats.

      (Aside: Isn’t it ridiculous when you see a person charged with “Use of a dangerous weapon; use of a weapon in the commission of a crime; use of a gun in the commission of a crime; illegal possession of a weapon” – rather redundant don’t ya think???)

      Further, few would ever take this extreme, as I said, too costly and too much work – I worry about government’s possession of these weapons – they tend to love to use them whenever possible.

      Re: UK
      Actually, violent crime exploded in the UK. Yes, gun crime is down – but all other violent crime is way up.

      A 90lb woman facing a 250lb man has no hope. The same woman plus a 5lb Colt suddenly eliminates the difference.

      One 250lb man vs 8 x 250lb men, has no hope. The same man plus a 5lb Colt suddenly eliminates the difference.

      This is the effect in the UK. The citizens are defenseless – and the evil knows it. There are annual ups and downs, but the decadeal trend is way up.

      • I totally agree with your assessment of nukes…if they have one we should be allowed…albeit the expense factor does limit our chances.

      • You are probably right BF. And I agree with your position, tho I know it is beyond where many people would accept the argument. The only flaw in your argument is this: What would a person like you want with a nuke? Well, a person LIKE YOU would not want one, except to balance a threatening power. But what about a person like those power seekers in government and elsewhere? They want one to seek power in a world where there is no one to stop them. Remember, not everyone is like you. Unfortunately, I am not even sure most people are like you.

    • Crimsonjihad says:

      Gun crime in England is down, due to less guns. However, and I say this, because my sister has lived in England for the last three years, knife crime takes over. When you make one weapon illegal, another takes it’s place. And it just makes it harder for people to protect themselves against a credible threat. If you want a gun, you can still get one.

      One of Hitler’s first move was gun control. You had to register all your guns. Then it’s easier to know who you have to take them from.

    • OK, here we go. Tell your English friends that European nations have homogeneous populations. They are less likely to kill each other. They also, by and large, frown on immigration. The exception is Switzerland where there are three distinct ethnic populations who all see themselves however as Swiss, not German, French or Italian. Even the Swiss take a dim view of immigration, legal and otherwise. The Yugoslavians, a civilized people, were only held in check by a dictatorship for fifty years. They never saw themselves as one country or people and as soon as Tito died, went right back to slaughtering each other. Their body count over the past twenty years exceeds all our firearm fatalities since we became a nation.

      We, for better or worse accept, “Your tired your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores”. Now, if we took the time to integrate the immigrant population and required them to learn our language and culture, I suspect crime rates would drop dramatically. I understand from my police friends that the immigrant population in jails and prisons is a number of such magnitude that you won’t see it published in the New York Times.

      Back in jolly olde England, since the immigration doors have been opened, gun crime has gone up dramatically not to mention knives and cricket bats. Are your English friends unaware of that? Actually they probably do know but never let facts get in the way of feelings.

      For those “kids” out there, Owning your own 60MM mortar, 3.5in rocket launcher or 37MM field piece was totally legal until GCA ’68 was passed. As a result of the assassinations of the Kennedy’s and Dr. King we got a new gun law. Obviously, there must have been artillery duels going on throughout the country at the time that I was unaware of since the new act banned these “destructive devices”. At college, we had a field piece referred to as “The Green Machine” which we fired (blanks) whenever our football team scored a touchdown. It was turned in and I imagine is now in it’s fourth or fifth incarnation as a Toyota.

    • Butch Davies says:

      Many professionals recommend a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel, no choke and “dove loads” or very fine shot. You have several things going for you, one is the sound of the load being chambered second you do not have to be accuratejust poke it around the corner and let go. the shot will scatter out and hit somebody and they will know it. The dove load is very light and will rarely penitrae drywall at any distance and if the person is real close to you the dove will create a massive wound.
      A little drywall patch and a new paint job and everything is cleared up

  7. TexasChem says:

    UK thugs use knives and clubs now instead of guns from what I have read up on. They get the same results as you would with a gun. All are weapons and will hence perform as they were intended ie… inflicting harm. They only exchanged one type of weapon for another. As has been stated numerous times before if a criminal wants a gun he buys off the black market anyway. So… the laws are imo useless; except to take weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens that would use them for self defense and hunting for game.

    • On a Constitutional level, I have always thought the right to bear arms was specifically and clearly to prevent the government from ever overpowering it’s people. I don’t know why, maybe the teacher I had back then made that clear.

      Self defense and hunting were just secondary benefits.

      • USWeapon says:

        Dee,

        Well you are just one of the people operating with their eyes open.

      • Butch Davies says:

        exactly why the ammendment is second only to the elements of the first ammendment. So as to protect those elements for that is the basis of our freedoms

  8. TexasChem says:

    If anything you would think crime more violent from hack n slash n club em to death in the UK. Maybe the UK citizens should start wearing chain mail and plate armor again…

  9. I have read the stats on violent crime in the UK as well. Chances are, the lack of violence there has nothing to do with their lack of weaponry. The only thing is, there are people there who believe it is the lack of weaponry that creates the realtive lack of violence. Of course, there are a lot of brainwashed, propoganda following people here too, so I suppose that should be no suprise. I would not doubt that the overall crime stats have changed little in Britain. So that takes care of that one.

    As for the nuke argument, I guess the question is whether there is a reasonable line to set up.

    • To finish my previous thought…
      I understand that logic gets fuzzy if something is taken to its extreme, but on the other hand, if a principle cannot be taken to the extreme, then it is either not defined well enough, or it is not consistent in its application, and is therefore weak.

      One of the things I respect about Black Flag is that he takes all of his arguments to the extreme and still does not waver on them. So on the right to bear arms, do we include all arms? If we do not, then is there a realistic and definable line to draw that will not easily be warped into something else? The anti-gun crowd is famous for using the “the founding fathers were only talking about hunting muskets” argument, they claim that had the founding fathers seen the current weaponry they would have thought differently. I am not certain that they would, and I personally think no arms should be restricted.

      I understand, however, those who think certain things should be restricted, like nukes for example. I also understand how many people who might support legalizing some drugs would still want hard drugs like heroin to remain illegal. It is a tough line.

      In all, tho, I would rather take the risk, at least with most things. I don’t want mini-tyrannies made by private owners of nukes and fighter planes and tanks threatening force if the town does not obey, but I don’t want a government to be the only one with hardcore weapons. Not that I don’t think the population could do a lot with just basic firearms if pressed.

  10. OK, I’ve got a little bit of a different take on this issue. Growing up in the northeast, I have always been staunchly anti-gun. My father hunted, my uncles hunted, and I hated it. I hated having to worry that I would be shot in the woods during deer season while riding my horse because some hunters are irresponsible, drunk, and shoot based on sound alone. And my horse was the color of a deer. I used all precautions; wore bright orange, sang or talked incessantly even while riding alone, but it scared me. To this day, I will not walk in the woods, or allow my kids to do so, during hunting season. And the hunters are shooting around subdivisions! Bloody deer come running out of the woods into neighborhoods, and my son finds spent shell casings all the time right near the houses. I never saw the need for anyone to own an assault rifle. So, this has been my thought process for 43 years.

    But…things have changed dramatically. Whereas I thought the 2nd amendment was an outdated right written by men for another time in history, I now GET IT. I now understand why it was written, and for what reasons. Now that fascism may be calling on my doorstep, right here in the USA, I understand the need for the 2nd, and will defend the right for any law abiding citizen to own a gun. It is truly amazing how prescient our founding fathers were. And how scary it is that the actions of my own government have prompted me to do a 180 on this issue. These are not normal times. The framers were protecting us and our rights for these times.

    • Welcome aboard.

      • I’ve been here darlin.’ USW, you’ve come a long way baby. Now you’ve got a welcoming committee? JK Ron, Thanks for your kindness!

    • MadMom,
      Kinda a side note. Deer are responsible for more deaths in the US than all other animals combined. Auto accidents, of course. The population of deer in the US in 1905 was 500,000. Today’s is 20 million. All efforts at controlling their population through means other than hunting have failed. We cannot control the population in a ten square mile area. National parks with overpopulation will have wildlife officers or contracted hunters euthanize game animals when they over-breed. So what should be revenue through hunting license is a taxpayer expense.
      I am a 4H shooting instructor. It is a great gun SAFETY program (not hunting)for kids aged 9-19. Suggest you look into that for your children. Maybe become an instructor yourself.

      • Hi Life, Yeah I know. I grew up in NH, and my uncle was killed when he hit a moose with his car one night. I constantly bug hubby to drive with his high beams on at night on dark roads so he doesn’t hit a deer. My beef isn’t with hunting deer as it is with irresponsible hunting, period. Hunting near homes, taking sound shots, hunting while drunk, etc. The 4-H suggestion is great. I was a big 4-H-er as a kid and think it’s a fabulous organization. But I’d still like to take a walk in the woods on a sunny autumn day in New England, and I cannot do it for fear of the above mentioned kooky hunters.

  11. USWeapon- You say “I do support the government restricting known violent felons from owning a gun. I do support the government restricting the mentally ill from owning a gun.” But those are instances of government regulating guns. After all, the government’s courts get to decide who is a “violent felon”, and more and more the very desire to own a gun is seen as an indication of being “mentally ill”. There is no way to keep guns away from bad people without also hurting good people. The best solution is to make sure every good person has easy access to any gun they want so that the thugs will be “darwinized” out of society. The Second Amendment doesn’t say “*except for those the government has decided are violent felons or mentally ill”.

    Another point, the Second Amendment gives no one the “right to keep and bear arms”; it forbids the government from interfering with that pre-existing right. None of the Bill of Rights applies to you or me, it only applies to government, by way of saying “these things are off-limits”. Regardless of any “law”, every person on the planet has the basic human right to own and to carry any weapon they desire, everywhere they go, in any manner they wish, without asking permission from anyone. Ever. Including nuclear or chemical weapons (but not the right to USE them to harm innocent people). Government can respect that right, or it can violate that right, but it can’t legitimately “limit” or forbid that right.

    One more point: No one is “a law abiding citizen” anymore, no matter what they may think of themselves. It is impossible since there are so many “laws” on the books it is not even theoretically possible to read them all in your lifetime. And remember “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.

    On another note, I am now the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner. Please come check out my columns.

    • USWeapon says:

      Welcome back Kent. So are you no longer writing on the site I have in my blogroll? If that is the case I will change the link and update it.

      • I am mostly posting on the Examiner.com site now. I have also been moving into a different house (with all the extra projects that entails) and a lot of other things, so my blog reading has taken a hit. It will probably be a while before I am back to full speed.

  12. Wow! I must say that I am delightfully surprised by the lucid, and right-minded comments on this very important issue. I worry so much for our beloved Republic these days, and at times I wonder if I am alone in this ongoing struggle “to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America”. I am happy to see that more then just a few people understand the legitimate and level-headed importance of the second amendment. It has always been about a population being able to defend itself against the tyranny of an oppressive government, it says as much in the Constitution. The tradgedy is that this debate, like so many others, has been marginalized by years of baby-step attacks, that collectively, have brought us to our current state. It all becomes crystal clear with the New Orleans example, and even though it was a horrible crime, maybe it has opened some eyes to the reality of a government out of step with it´s citizenry, and unabashedly trampling upon the tenants that formed this great nation. This is an increasingly dangerous time for us all, and the fact that this “debate” rages on, despite the amazing clarity of the constitution, only serves to demonstrate the myriad of ways that our government is attacking and enslaving us all, slowly and quietly, one infringement after another, until one day you wake-up and it´s 2009, and you can hardly recognize the country that so many of us voluntarily fought to defend. I continue to fight, to uphold my oath, “to support and defend, the Constitution of the United States of America, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FORIEGN AND DOMESTIC” -michael j. lonkouski

    • USWeapon says:

      Thanks Michael,

      We work very heard to keep the tone of the blog civil. You will find there are LOTS of disagreements, but we tend to do it respectfully and in a way that lets us learn from one another.

  13. What kind of gun legislation has obama and emmanuel pushed for and implemented in Chicago , and can we expect that same agenda in major U.S. cities next time marshall law is in ?

    • It can be found on his Illinois voting record. He proposed a 500% tax on ammunition. That no business selling firearms could be located within five miles of a school, park or church, which would put 90% of gun stores out of business. He has also spoken out about repealing all concealed carry permits.

  14. esomhillholler says:

    Gun Control to me means being able to hit what you aim at. I think that if the govt ever does come to take our guns, they will discover that there have been a lot of theives at work, and everyones guns have been lost or stolen.

  15. Black Flag says:

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur – what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

    If… if… We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! ……….. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    ~ Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918–1956

  16. Calf Roper says:

    Keep in mind that the government will never (in my opinion) openly seek to take weapons away from American citizens. Instead, government will come “as a thief in the night” and gradually and steadfastly eat away at our rights to bear arms. It has, and will continue, to happen this way. Thank God for groups like the NRA and others who fight the court battles and support people who bear arms. If you don’t belong to the NRA, please join and support them.

    I would have to also say that no person in the world will ever take away my firearms. I would die fighting.

  17. Has anyone tried to buy ammo in the last few months? They don’t have to take our guns….their intent is to make them worthless. In the UK shotguns for hunting are allowed and are to be kept in vaults…not gun cabinets….vaults. The keys are to be on the gun owner not hung on a hook some where. You can not even give your kids a BB gun. But you better not leave your doors unlocked or leave anything of value in your vehicle.
    There is a large difference in guns and weapons of mass destruction and really does not deserve discussion in a debate concerning gun control.
    MadMom you are correct it is dangerous to ride a horse during deer season….so I didn’t, but I do have lots of friends who do. There are lots of people turned loose with guns “to hunt” who have no respect for others…but you have the same problem with criminals….they have no respect for others. It is not the guns I am afraid of it is the idiots behind them. My father kept loaded guns (several) in his house….not one child ever tried to touch them and there were hundreds of kids in his house at times. He taught all of us to respect guns and their power. He taught us how to hunt and use our guns safely. Guns are not for everyone……if you don’t know how to use one you need to learn or get a more preferred weapon.

    • USWeapon says:

      Amazed1,

      Good insight. There is a massive move in the country to regulate guns through restricting the purchase of ammunition. That is another area that I think we should not able to have a law restricting us.

  18. Black Flag says:

    Jon Smith

    Thanks, Jon.

    I feel that the common man is far too busy in his life to bother with ‘bothering’ other people – so for the vast population, personal self-defense will be their choice.

    The doctrine of Clear and Present Danger would probably take care of the loonie with a nuke issue.

    The People need not force themselves ignorant that a dangerous man with a very dangerous weapon is a very dangerous thing to their lives and well-being – and deal with it before it becomes deadly….as long as the Clear and Present Danger is fully realized. I am sure, even with me, my free-man community would demand much from me to prove away my danger to them before they accepted the nuke.

  19. First of all though our family does not own any guns(yet), I am in favor of freedom of choice in this regard.

    There is one thing you are missing however, a flaw in your logic.

    First of all you say you have never met with a logical argument for gun control. I think you’re missing the point. People who believe in gun control (or any government control) are not making decisions based on logic. They are emotional decisions. If you hear someone say “guns are bad because they kill people” you know right away that judgement has been made on emotion because obviously with even a minute amount of logic a sane person would immediately know that people kill people, not guns. Perhaps the failure of conservatives has been in our attempt to convert illogical, emotional people to our side with logical arguements. Appealing to their emotions as well as setting forth logical arguements might be more effective. That takes care of the average American.

    The second flaw is when you deal with people in positions of power in government. You are assuming they have a desire to regard the Constitution as law. I do not think they do, though they would never admit this openly. The Constitution has been blatantly violated too many times by people in power to make it a coincidence or accident. The Supreme Court has not upheld the law. The ignorant voters have not demanded impeachment of those responsible, so they continue to subvert and disregard the law of the land.

    That explains to me at least why you cannot understand their side. The are basing decisions on emotion and a disregard for the Constitution, both of which are foreign to you.

    • “people kill people, not guns”

      Michelle- That isn’t quite true. It is with a head bowed in shame that I admit, I once killed a gun. It wasn’t intentional. I still have its sad little corpse in a case; never really wanting to accept the fact that it is dead.

      • USWeapon says:

        What is the maximum penalty for killing guns? I can’t believe that you admitted that right here on the blog. What if the feds are reading?

        • I would say it is a life sentence. The guilt eats at me every time I think about it, or when I take it out and look at its useless remains. I can never bring my little Butler .22 short single-shot derringer back to life. Unless… some day… Numrich gets in the part I need: a new hammer. Then I still would need to perform a successful transplant; something that may be as unlikely as getting the proper part.

          • SFC Dick says:

            I’ve killed a gun, not another mans’ gun, but mine. I took it apart to “make it more better” then over the course of my most important and completely cluttered life, I lost parts. This was not my best gun but it was my lil’ buddy that nuzzled itself in my pocket when I strolled about the streets and back alleys of Chicago. The cost of replacement parts are prohibitive in fact, would cost as much as an entire replacement. I keep this gun because of government, and stupid do gooders. Not kept in defense as I have more lethal, sexy variants and types about, no not kept for defense, kept for spite. I know some day, as in past days, the government allied with some moralist do gooder group is going to have a gun buy back. They have in the past but have yet to meet my price.I go about my activities but I pay heed to their progresses. I take evil satisfaction on their continuing efforts and labors to raise money for this program.
            When my price is met or their efforts seem so labored and heavy; I shall dress in my finest attire ( I don’t want to be confused for some dreg who has foolishly traded his tool for work because of laziness in exchange for some meager pittance) load buggy with wife and dogs and venture to town and this event. I believe I should also pay for a place to park for the day as I fancy I might be about visiting the local public areas and giving hello to my metropolitan neighbors and possibly discussing some matters of fact or newest gossip. I shall progress to the event, in a parade of my own making, lovely wife , prominent with both German Sheppard’s at her flanks. I shall patiently wait my turn , standing in line polite in conversation and civil in demeanor until it is my time to transact with the devil and his merry lynch men. Standing erect on my two hind legs I shall produce the aforementioned, formerly fine weapon reduced to scrap by me, place it upon the table and await my remuneration. Good chances that I know some of these fellows, so much as we are a small community all having vocation in arms, I might even banter a bit with a few bits of conversations concerning wives, families and careers. Satisfied in my purpose I should hardly be able to disguise my self approbation at swindling the swindler. At such point the gentleman would be weary of aggrandizement through boast as it would surely bring to bear some reckoning .Contended and fattened in my wallet, the wife, dogs and I should stroll the markets and bazaar . I should fulfill my strategery in furtherment of the cause. I would be want to make purchase of weaponry or stores, funded by the very clabber of erroneous types, making their endeavor moot. Yes, I should like that very much.

            • “Tis my utterance that thou art indeed our true bard. Weapon, cast coin and ammunition afore this great poets feet, for verily thou speakest of a glorious day!

              (LOL- that was great!)

      • I apologize for my poor grammar.

  20. It is about time someone else besides us old pre-depression boomers understood the truth about “GUN CONTROL”. It really is about control of the population. What they are not telling you is that once the government reachs a certian size and make up, the CONSTITUTION will be amended out by the left wing. Becareful we are headed that way now. Removal of one RIGHT at a time starting with free speach and so on down the line.

    • USWeapon says:

      Gene,

      I think this is the first time I have seen you post something on here. Welcome to the site. I hope you will stick around a bit and engage in intelligent discussions with us. Your thoughts here are in line with mine.

  21. Two reasons for gun control: the gummint is scared, and wimmins is scared. (Liberals may fall into either group.)

    My wife acknowledges that her fears are irrational but she has them anyway and refuses to be persuaded. Of course, I am slowly persuading her against her will.

    When anyone cries “stop manipulating me!” the correct response is subtler manipulation.

    • Butch Davies says:

      check out frontsight.com to help your wife understand and overcome her issues with weapons

  22. The US Constitution guarantees us the right to “keep and bear arms”; literally it means we can not only own guns but carry them with us on our persons. The only way to change that is to amend the constitution, which we all know about; liberals could never get the majority of states to go along with THAT.

    That being said, I will concede that what works for western Nebraska where you can shoot a gun in any direction and not hit anyone, probably won’t be appreciated in Chicago, where one might accidently hit an ACORN worker.

    Unrestricted gun ownership will work fine in conjunction with other laws regarding private property and local communities, where for example a tavern owner could (and should) ban weapons from his private property and communities could vote to restrict the right to carry weapons on all public areas. The federal government has no inherent rights in this area.

    Our Declaration of Independence penned by Thomas Jefferson put it so simply and brilliantly that whenever a governemnt no longer works for the people it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Enough said.

  23. March Hare says:

    here is the test of a letter I have been sending out to everyone and anyone who will stand still, I cane across your site and thought I would pass it along to the thoughtful folk here. It approaches the “control” issue from a different point with the same end result, Interesting, it is about control

    CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHTS

    I AM NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, JUST A THOUGHTFUL PERSON.

    My Thoughts:
    Our Founding Fathers were wise and thoughtful men who by chance of circumstance were drawn together to found a nation and outline a path for its future which has stood the test of time where no other country has existed unchanged in its political structure and existence. I pondered why this was true.

    They determined that the most important feature of any free society or political entity was freedom of speech and the inalienable right to exercise that right unhindered by individual or government action or policy. Therefore we have the First Amendment on Freedom of Speech.

    They then concluded that it is the responsible of every citizen to be able to defend that freedom by force of arms if necessary. Our police forces local, state and federal are charged with the enforcement of the laws enacted by their representative legal bodies.
    Our military is forbidden from military action within our country with just cause. Again this is to protect the citizens of the United States from improper exercise of power by its government. Our founding fathers placed such importance on this issue that they made it the Second most important Amendment of the Constitution.
    In the 1860s, during the Civil War, legislators were trying to root out traitors. They wanted a more explicit oath. They had the oath of office rewritten. Here is the oath of office taken by every U.S. Senator, federal employee, and military service member since that time. I might also note that upon leaving their position they are not released from that oath
    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
    This was carefully worded in Article IV of the Constitution, which they placed the term DOMESTIC ahead of FOREIGN. In other words they held traitors against the Constitution in greater contempt than an agent of a foreign power spying on this Country.
    I now wish to point out some additional facts which bear on this issue. Right after World War Two in the areas controlled by the Soviet Republic it was first required that all personal firearms be registered. The people complied, then it was declared that all firearms be turned in and the police went from house to house collecting those arms. Then in countries like Hungary, when the Soviet Army marched in to take over, had no way to defend themselves from the invasion because the puppet government had disarmed them.
    I now wish to point out the situation in both England and Australia who have effectively disarmed their population by the very methods started by President Obama’s actions (and supporters) and followed by the actions described by the actions of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. The crime rates have skyrocketed in both these countries; for as we all know only the law abiding will obey the laws.

    Let me now point out that Mexico is in the midst of a massive drug war which has spilled over into These United States both in towns and cities across this country as well as armed conflict across our common border.

    May I point out that one of the strongest deterrents from an armed ground invasion is the combat trained, experienced and armed civilian population! Our military cannot protect us on all borders. We cannot afford to have that large a standing army nor do we have the people.

    I now wish to address the country of Switzerland. Every adult and able male is part of that tiny country’s armed forces and are required by law to keep their combat weapon at home along with sufficient ammunition and supplies for immediate deployment without having to be issued arms. I ask you that besides their rugged terrain why do you think this tiny country remained Neutral even during World War Two and has never been effectively invaded or over run? They are an entire nation of armed people ready, trained and equipped to defend their country.

    I had occasion to read the remarks of a Russian General Officer about the greatest fear he had about the American fighting man. It was their familiarity with firearms from their youth and their inventiveness in combat.

    I must now refer this reader to the “Truth About Gun Owners” (Tag Questionnaire). Every proposal of President Obama and his backers PROPOSE weakens this nation’s ability to defend itself, from enemies, DOMESTIC or FOREIGN.

    No matter if you are a gun owner or not, no matter if you are a hunter or not, we as a people cannot allow any of the rights given us in the Bill of Rights to be infringed. In truth, the only thing that stands between us as individuals and a nation from being over taker by governments either internal or external is the first Two Amendments to our Constitution. Everything is subordinate to these two elements of this document, The Constitution of the United States of America.

    We cannot let this entitlement of the Right To Bear Arms to be modified or abridged in any way, for to do so opens the door to undermining every other Amendment! That will be the end of this Great American Experiment in self government.

    This is bigger than just issue of gun ownership. This is a true Constitutional crisis in the making. I personally fear the reaction of Americans to this issue, for it very well could contribute to disastrous internal strife, which in-turn would open our country to attack from without.

    I ask that you give my thoughts very careful consideration and how I view the possible impact if this issue on our nation, our children, grand children and generations to come. There is enough divisive issues facing this country, without introducing one of this magnitude which as I view as unwarranted and un-needed. I also ask of you that if you agree, and I suspect that you do, you take my words and thoughts, expand upon them if you feel necessary and make them the highest issue in this land.

    • Well thought out and well said!

    • March Hare said it best. And as it was once said before “A country cannot be conquered from without, until it has been conquered from within.” This is a powerful saying as it is so very true. Had Hitler not perverted his power, had he instilled more of a German pride, and not done the crimes he had committed against humanity, I believe whole heartedly that the war in which he started would have turned a different page. The constitution is what gives us power. And if that is change, amended, or done away with we will be no better than the countries that we despise. The communistic countries that oppose us. They will see this weakness and attack. America has not the friends we used to. Trust me, it will come down to a fight on our own ground if this occurs. We are not an invincible country, and with the way that other countries (Russia, China, North Korea and certain south american countries) are acting in this day, it gives me great fear for this country. If we weaken ourselves anymore, I fear that it will be a great war for this country and for all of man kind.

  24. I have posted a couple of columns about the right to keep (“own”) and bear (“carry”) arms in the last couple of days.
    Here and here
    Check them out if you are interested.

  25. March Hare says:

    thanks SK. Trynosky Sr.I appreciate your comment. I just hope some of the large number of folk read this and have the same opinion

  26. I agree with you wholeheartedly USWeapon. The only reason they want gun control is so that you only have a pistol to their fully automatic rifles, tanks, bazookas. It’s pure strategy. Small arms versus large arms. The government would think twice about tyranny if the majority of its populace had assault rifles, grenades and other higher powered weapons. Wouldn’t you? This is also one of the reasons I went out and specifically bought an assault rifle.

    And another argument with the gun control is the ban on certain types of clips. I have an sks with a 30 round clip. Now, this clip is not so much legal. BUT, this is another reason they want to control what you can have. If you have a 10 round clip, and they have a 30 round clip. Who reloads first? You. That in my opinion is the only reason why 30 round clips are not legal.

    Now some would make the claim that they have been used to rob banks and fight cops. Duh. But pistols have been used 100 times more for this very same thing. Banning pistols will not happen. So they think that banning a certain type of weapon should help. Like banning assault rifles. Well, the majority of bank robberies and violent crimes do not occur with these types of weapons. Most occur with pistols. How often do you see some guy rubbing a convenience store with an AK47? I know I’ve seen plenty of these shows on TV that show the camera footage from camera systems located in stores, banks and what not. I have not seen anyone, that i can think of, that used an AK47, an AR15, an M16 or any of those. Yet these are the guns they want to ban from civilian hands.

    I say try and take them. I will defend my right to bear weapons. I plan on purchasing more in the future too. With the way things are going with this country, you can never be too prepared for the things that can happen. Especially if you have a family.

  27. March Hare says:

    Have been reading “THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER” by Les Webb, Palladium Press, Birhimingham, AL.
    In this book the author makes a very simple but telling statement.

    Hitler (adolph) was known to have remarked to subjucate a people, first take their guns.

    For all interested in the history of the Second Amendment and its interpitation in the time at which it was written I highly recommend this book.

  28. March Hare says:

    Thanks Jake for first of all reading and understanding what has become a very convoluted subject. One very hard to discuss in simplistic terms.

    What toatlly escapes me is how the anti gun folk think criminals will obey the law and carry only weapons that meet their legal definition.
    Help me here Jake, why do we call them criminals? Oh yeah they dont obey the law. see problem solved just make the criminals obey the law…Idiots.

  29. come and take it says:

    Guns kill people just like spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat!

  30. I am enclosing a paper i have written on the 2nd ammendment issue

    TO: Senator: 13 February 2009

    CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHTS

    I AM NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR,
    JUST A THOUGHTFUL PERSON.

    My Thoughts:
    Our Founding Fathers were wise and thoughtful men who by chance of circumstance were drawn together to found a nation and outline a path for its future which has stood the test of time where no other country has existed unchanged in its political structure and existence. I pondered why this was true.

    They determined that the most important feature of any free society or political entity was freedom of speech and the inalienable right to exercise that right unhindered by individual or government action or policy. Therefore we have the First Amendment on Freedom of Speech.

    They then concluded that it is the responsible of every citizen to be able to defend that freedom by force of arms if necessary. Our police forces local, state and federal are charged with the enforcement of the laws enacted by their representative legal bodies.
    Our military is forbidden from military action within our country with just cause. Again this is to protect the citizens of the United States from improper exercise of power by its government. Our founding fathers placed such importance on this issue that they made it the Second most important Amendment of the Constitution.
    In the 1860s, during the Civil War, legislators were trying to root out traitors. They wanted a more explicit oath. They had the oath of office rewritten. Here is the oath of office taken by every U.S. Senator, federal employee, and military service member since that time. I might also note that upon leaving their position they are not released from that oath
    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
    This was carefully worded in Article IV of the Constitution, which they placed the term DOMESTIC ahead of FOREIGN. In other words they held traitors against the Constitution in greater contempt than an agent of a foreign power spying on this Country.
    I now wish to point out some additional facts which bear on this issue. Right after World War Two in the areas controlled by the Soviet Republic it was first required that all personal firearms be registered. The people complied, then it was declared that all firearms be turned in and the police went from house to house collecting those arms. Then in countries like Hungary, when the Soviet Army marched in to take over, had no way to defend themselves from the invasion because the puppet government had disarmed them.
    I now wish to point out the situation in both England and Australia who have effectively disarmed their population by the very methods started by President Obama’s actions (and supporters) and followed by the actions described by the actions of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. The crime rates have skyrocketed in both these countries; for as we all know only the law abiding will obey the laws.

    Let me now point out that Mexico is in the midst of a massive drug war which has spilled over into These United States both in towns and cities across this country as well as armed conflict across our common border.

    May I point out that one of the strongest deterrents from an armed ground invasion is the combat trained, experienced and armed civilian population! Our military cannot protect us on all borders. We cannot afford to have that large a standing army nor do we have the people.

    I now wish to address the country of Switzerland. Every adult and able male is part of that tiny country’s armed forces and are required by law to keep their combat weapon at home along with sufficient ammunition and supplies for immediate deployment without having to be issued arms. I ask you that besides their rugged terrain why do you think this tiny country remained Neutral even during World War Two and has never been effectively invaded or over run? They are an entire nation of armed people ready, trained and equipped to defend their country.

    I had occasion to read the remarks of a Russian General Officer about the greatest fear he had about the American fighting man. It was their familiarity with firearms from their youth and their inventiveness in combat.

    I must now refer this reader to the “Truth About Gun Owners” (Tag Questionnaire). Every proposal of President Obama and his backers PROPOSE weakens this nation’s ability to defend itself, from enemies, DOMESTIC or FOREIGN.

    No matter if you are a gun owner or not, no matter if you are a hunter or not, we as a people cannot allow any of the rights given us in the Bill of Rights to be infringed. In truth, the only thing that stands between us as individuals and a nation from being over taken by governments either internal or external is the first Two Amendments to our Constitution. Everything is subordinate to these two elements of this document, The Constitution of the United States of America.

    We cannot let this entitlement of the Right To Bear Arms to be modified or abridged in any way, for to do so opens the door to undermining every other Amendment! That will be the end of this Great American Experiment in self government.

    This is bigger than just issue of gun ownership. This is a true Constitutional crisis in the making. I personally fear the reaction of Americans to this issue, for it very well could contribute to disastrous internal strife, which in-turn would open our country to attack from without.

    I ask that you give my thoughts very careful consideration and how I view the possible impact if this issue on our nation, our children, grand children and generations to come. There is enough divisive issues facing this country, without introducing one of this magnitude which as I view as unwarranted and un-needed. I also ask of you that if you agree, and I suspect that you do, you take my words and thoughts, expand upon them if you feel necessary and make them the highest issue in this land.

    Sincerely

    CC: Senator
    Representative

  31. Beentheremanytimes says:

    Wise words indeed! However, I have two things to point out:

    1. The are over 50,000,000 gun owners in this country, each owning an average of 2.5 guns (I have 5 so I count as two). So, with over 100 million personal weapons and billions of rounds of ammo, no government on this planet can “take” our guns away unless we roll over and give them up. I don’t plan on doing that.

    2. We have a weapon so much more powerful than guns that politicians spend one billion dollars every two years just to convince us how much we need them. Yet less than 50% of us use our vote every election. This is the real danger to our republic, voter apathy. Forty years ago turnover in Congress was 50% and it was considered beneath the dignity of former congressmen to work for a private firm in Washington. Now, 90% of incumbents are re-elected and those that aren’t, usually go to work as a paid lobbyist. Think about what has happened to our country over the past 20 years: Outsourcing of jobs + 11 million illegal immigrants, 600 billion dollar annual trade deficits, spiraling health care costs, massive class action lawsuits that paralyze businesses, lax banking regs, etc. etc. etc. And all of this brought to us by a handful of men and women who have been in office too long. We already live in a pseudo dictatorship, power is vested in 15-20 people, President, Supreme Court justices, Speaker of the House, and various committee heads.

    Between Republicans and their “give it all to the rich” philosophy and the Democrats with their socialist agenda, we are doomed unless we, the people, take back our government through enactment of prudent limits on congressional terms. VOTE! Or, if you live in Chicago or work for ACORN, VOTE, VOTE!

  32. W. Nabor says:

    I think “wethe people” are in for avery rude awakening,in the form ofa declaration of martial law,after some trumpped up ’emergency’the regime orchestrates followed by confiscation & bans on all civillian owned weapons.We have seen the agenda being laid out plainly for us ,”socialing” everything that he possibly can,the complete disregard for the constitution,&it’s requirements for &restrictions of,the government,the total&utter disrespect for the will of the people,as far as immigration, banking,healthcare,race relations,the permitted intimidation of white voters&threats directed @whites in general by black panther thugs, the apology tours, the influence that outright terrorists&communists have on the president& the number that are actually in the administration,the obvious hatred for anything traditionally American,our religion,our way of life,our standing in the world,the prejudice infavoer of minorities,& the muslims ,not to mention the complete revision of the war on terror,you can’t even say the words let alone fight it properly any longer,the total handicapping of our armed forces with ridiculous rules of engagement & resrictions&removal of air support for our troops engaged&under fire.It should be frighteningly obviuos what is going to be facing the real heart& soul of America ,the white middle class,the majority [for now]in America:TOTAL DESTRUCTION of our way of life,our constitutional form of government,our very right to survive & live as our forefathers sought to ensure by thier struggles,sacrifices&blood.We have to decide to stand up like real Americans have done for 234 years,for if we ignore this call,&that is what it is ,we are finished ,& our children deserve better than to live in the mess that this liar,racebaiter,propagandizer,this narcissistic,muslim idealogue calls his dream for the nation.

%d bloggers like this: