Posts Tagged ‘firearms


The Militia Mentioned In The 2nd Amendment = All The Citizens

America was founded on the idea that every person should be guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that government should not impede their will or political motive on you. At the time this was written in 1776 the idea was novel – previously all people were subjects of the state and the state did as it wished. For the first time in history people were being deemed more powerful than the government.

please delete

As part of that promise the newly founded American government wanted to ensure that it never got out of hand and if it did that it’s citizens would be able to keep it in check. To keep it in check the first right they gave them was the First Amendment. In this right they allowed the people to tell their government that they were being wronged and to petition for a change in government. Secondly they gave the people the Second Amendment. In this right they allowed the people to bear arms equal to the government in so that if it ever got out of control or slipped back into tyranny the people (the real government) could physically fight them and change their government.

The Second Amendment as it was authenticated by the Secretary of State reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The co-author of the Second Amendment, George Mason, at the Convention to ratify the Consitution said, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” If one knows history the right to bear arms isn’t a state militia but rather an individual having the right to bear arms because an unarmed citizen was what Kings and Queen had – an enslaved subject.

It has now been over 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own governme…nt, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are gua ranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it’s too late!
Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?

Why Is The Military Training in Our Cities?

Recently there have been reports from urban America that the military is doing drills within the city – some reportedly using live-fire and helicopters while others invading schools so that children “know what gun fire sounds like.”

This alarms me. I know the official answer is probably something like “we are training for an overseas operation” but I just don’t buy it. I was in the Army and I know that the Army has a whole school for training how to jump out of a helicopter for an operation – it is called Air Assault School. If the Army already has such schools then it seems logical to believe that they don’t need to train in the city where we all live. After all, isn’t the military supposed to mainly fight foreign enemies?

But let’s just say that they don’t have a school and they must train in the city where we live, shouldn’t we be notified that soldiers will be roaming the streets or flying helicopters past our bedrooms and office cubicles? There is even evidence that in Houston the helicopters were live-firing while flying through the city.

As far as I’m concerned this is wrong. All power in America is vested in the people and if the people don’t posess that right then they cannot cede that power to the government to handle. A government that creates it’s own power is a tyrannical state and no longer a Republic of We The People.

Specifically speaking if I personally opened fire within the city limits I would be held accountable in Arizona for discharging a firearm in the city and I would probably be subsequently visited by the police, beaten by the police, tasered by the police and taken downtown until they firuted out what to do with me. I ask though, how am I supposed to act as a citizen who is uninformed by my government of such training missions? What am I to do if I believe I am being fired upon – am I allowed to return fire in defense?

I don’t know about you but I don’t want to live in a world where there are armed people, regardless of  whether it is an American soldier or a Jihadist soldier, flying around in the sky. This is not the sign of a free land but rather an occupied land.

I am sending off letters to all politicians to see if they know what is going on and to try to get some answers. Below is a copy of my letter that I am sending. Feel free to copy, adjust, and send off to your state and federal politicians.

Mr. <NAME>: 


There has been some indication in the news that certain cities across the United States are experiencing live-fire military drills over American cities recently, some of which are conducting live-fire drills. I know this has happened in Miami, Florida, and Houston, Texas. This naturally causes concern and confusion to me, especially if the drill is unbeknownst to me. If I discharged a firearm within the city limits I would be tried under ARS § 13-3107 entitled, “Unlawful discharge of firearms; exceptions; classification; definitions.”

I would like to know the following:

  1. Why are live-fire drills being performed over cities by the United States military?
  2. What will you do to ensure that this does not happen and if it is going to happen that the public is properly notified?
  3. What would be the lawful outcome if a citizen opened return fire in defense of such a drill?


God help us if we ever have real troops acting against it’s own citizens.


A Little Gun Disarment History

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!  Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II said, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It’s time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people


Connecticut: What the Anti-Gun Crowd Really Wants

Stolen from a friend of a friend with a law degree:

Connecticut gun laws the killer LIKELY violated (with assumptions pointed out):

[DISCLAIMER: This is based on the “facts” about the situation being currently reported. These “facts” are fluid, and would affect the following analysis.]

One: He’s guilty of three counts of theft. (Assuming mom didn’t lend him the two pistols and rifle.)

Two: He’s guilty of three counts of possessing a weapon on school grounds.

Three: He’s guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a pistol or revolver. (Assuming he was “convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense,” which is a logical assumption based upon reports that he had a “checkered past” and had been a “troubled youth for most of his life.”)

Four: He’s guilty of two counts of illegal possession of handguns. (Concealed-carry permits aren’t granted to anyone in Connecticut under the age of 21.)

So that’s at least four laws, and with a total of 10 violations (counts). Note that I didn’t mention other laws he broke, including murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Those “counts” would be nearly incalculable.

Laws (like those listed above) can only punish violations in retrospect – i.e., after the violation has occurred.

So, logically and unemotionally, my serious question is:

What additional gun laws would have PREVENTED this situation and other recent mass killings?

If “gun control” advocates hold their position that their goal is to PREVENT such situations, then logic dictates that the only law that would meet their objective would be very easy to draft:

“No person, citizen or non-citizen, living within the United States may own or possess any firearm.”

Imagine the governmental (police state) powers that would be required to enforce such a law. No longer would we be simply talking about the Second Amendment. There would be multiple parts of the Constitution that would need to be discarded.

As long as the goal is prevention, the real agenda of those advocating strict gun control legislation must be the collection and destruction of all firearms. That would be the only way to PREVENT such incidents from occurring.

And my apologies to those who may be offended due to the timeliness of this post. I’m not without sympathy. It’s simply the analytic and logical part of my nature to move to such a discussion quickly.


GOP Adopts Strongly Pro-Gun Platform

I do not appreciate Romney’s anti-gun voting record but at least the delegates at the RNC have created the most pro-gun platform in history. Now we can only hope that he sticks to it. Original article here.

This week at the Republican National Convention, the Republican Party adopted its platform detailing the general beliefs and policy positions of the party. Included in the 2012 Republican platform is a strong statement of support for the individual right to keep and bear arms, which goes beyond a generic statement of support for the Second Amendment and includes specific statements on key issues of concern to gun owners.

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

The inclusion of specific issues, such as the right to self-defense, opposition to the semi-auto ban, and support for interstate Right-to-Carry reciprocity makes this the most pro-Second Amendment position ever included in a major party platform.


DeTroit Columnist Thinks He Knows Better Than Founding Fathers

Detroit News columnist Robert Smith, Jr apparently is one pretty smart guy. He knows better than our Founding Fathers, who were wrong to give citizens the right to bear arms.

The Founding Fathers of our country made a mistake when they said we had the right to bear arms. They did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.

The right to bear arms is killing all of us. In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods. And CNN reported yesterday that black-on-black murder of young black men is up 40 percent from last year. The harder the times get, the higher these statistics will go.

Yet again, we have another instance of an idiot bleeding heart liberal with no concept of the FACT that guns do not miraculously start flying around, shooting people at random with no one pulling the trigger!

Guns do not kill people. PEOPLE kill people. When will liberals ever get that through their thick skulls? Banning guns does not end crime, as the British could tell you. They banned guns, and guess what happened? Stabbing deaths skyrocketed. If someone wants to murder someone, they’re going to find a way to do it. They likely won’t care about breaking one more law to get a gun, either. Banning guns takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and yet, criminals will continue to have them.

But the main thing that’s interesting here is the assertion that the Founding Fathers strictly gave us the right to bear arms so that we could fight the British. God, is this guy brain dead? We were given the right to bear arms not only to protect our homes and families, but also so that the citizenry could fight back against a tyrannical government. And that’s any tyrannical government, not just the British government.

Look, I get it. Liberals hate seeing astronomically high rates of inner-city violence, especially when guns are involved. So do the rest of us. However, the rest of us understand that the GUN is not responsible. The man holding the gun is. An unloaded gun sitting on a table is not going to spontaneously fire itself unless someone loads the weapon and pulls the trigger. A gun by itself is harmless. A gun in a person’s hands, however, is dangerous, and it is the people using them to commit acts of violence that should be held accountable, not the weapon. But then, that would require liberals to believe in people actually taking responsibility for their own actions, and they couldn’t cry over criminals sitting in prison anymore, could they? After all, it’s never the murderer’s fault, is it? It’s the fault of that nasty, nasty gun.

(Reblogged. Original here)


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain