Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control

January 14, 2013 by  

An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control
PHOTOS.COM

Dear ______________:

I realize it is customary to begin missives to elected representatives with the words Honorable Senator ______________ or Honorable Representative ______________, but I believe that title must be earned. Frankly, you (I am referring to you individually and to Congress as a whole) have not done so and, therefore, do not deserve to be addressed that way. However, the purpose of this letter is not to criticize you, but to inform you about what is happening in the country you were elected to serve.

According to a recent poll, Congress’ favorability ranks below lice, cockroaches, colonoscopies and root canals. Have you for a moment stopped to wonder why? It’s because a vast majority of Americans believe that Congress no longer represents them, but instead represents big corporations and, mostly, themselves and their cronies. The recent “fiscal cliff” deal is a perfect example. It socked a tax increase on 80 percent of American workers while doling out $76 billion in government money (which means my money) through special tax favors to large corporations, such as General Electric, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and DIAGEO, and to Hollywood and green energy companies. According to a recent column in The Washington Examiner, Senator Max Baucus’ (Fascist-Mont.) former staffers who are now lobbyists all got their clients millions of dollars in special benefits from the fiscal cliff deal. In return, Baucus received thousands of dollars in political contributions from those companies’ political action committees. Americans, myself included, believe this is standard operating procedure in Washington, D.C. And there is talk that additional tax increases on the middle class are on the way.

Upon your inauguration, you swore an oath, with your hand on a Bible, to uphold and defend the Constitution. You have repeatedly violated that oath by passing unConstitutional laws like the USA Patriot Act (and subsequent extensions) and the National Defense Authorization Act, which grants the President the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens and suspends habeas corpus. If I’m not mistaken, these unConstitutional laws contain provisions that in some way violate Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. That’s quite a feat for two laws.

We live in a Nation that goes far beyond anything George Orwell imagined in 1984. Our emails are read, our conversations are listened to, our cars have tracking devices and there are cameras everywhere watching our every move. Law enforcement has devices that can look through our clothes and into our cars and homes, and surveillance drones are patrolling our skies. Travelers are treated as criminals who must be strip searched or patted down before being allowed to fly — and sometimes before being allowed to board trains or buses. Many of us feel this is tyranny.

Now, in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is a great hue and cry among the elected class and the mainstream media about guns and gun violence. To hear them tell it, every gun owner in America is a potential mass murderer, especially those who happen to own a sporting rifle. You and I know that is balderdash.

The anti-gun lobby loves to pull out figures and statistics that it claims show that America is the most violent place on the planet, saying that if guns were simply banned, America would be a crime-free utopia. Let me give you some real statistics. Yes, the recent shootings at Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colo., were tragic and senseless. Do you know what their common denominators are? Both occurred in so-called “gun-free zones.” That means the shooters who made conscious choices to disregard our laws were able to freely attack a group of adults who were restricted by their desire to obey our laws from defending themselves and the children in their charge. Both shooters, as is the case with the vast majority of recent mass shooters, were on prescription psychotropic drugs prior to the attacks.

According to FBI crime data from 2011, rifles (of which the misnamed “assault rifle” is a subset) were used in only 323 of 8,583 firearms murders. This is a continuation of a long-established trend in which the rifle is the least-used of all firearm weapons involved in murders. Rifle use as a murder weapon even ranks below knives, blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) and hands and feet.

In other words, rifles of all types kill less than one person per day. And fewer than 100 people are killed each year by rifles with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. According to MotherJones.com, from 1982 through 2012 sporting rifles have been employed in mass shootings 35 times. They were used only three times in 2012. In those three attacks, 52 people died. Since the Sandy Hook shooting on Dec. 14, 40 juveniles (statistically speaking) have died in shootings using a weapon other than a sporting rifle. THAT’S JUST ONE MONTH.

Meanwhile, according to Childhelp, more than five children each day — or more than 1,825 per year — are killed by parental abuse. I realize that thinking about the 20 children gunned down by a drug-addled, mentally unstable man is gut-wrenching. But since the Sandy Hook shooting, about 10 times as many children have died at the hands of their parents, and almost twice as many have been killed in juvenile gang crimes. Why don’t these seem to concern you? Could it be because the media are not interested in talking about it and it won’t get you the “face time” you desire? Why aren’t you addressing the topic of the widespread administration of psychotropic drugs and their common link to mass shootings? Is it because you stand to lose political contributions from the medical-industrial complex?

Gun grabbers love to hold Great Britain up as a model of what happens when guns are banned. Well, let’s compare U.S. and U.K. crime statistics. Britain is the most violent country in the European Union. Since the imposition of the country’s gun ban following the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, recorded violent attacks have soared by 77 percent. The violent crime rate there is 2,034 per 100,000 residents.

Contrast that with the United States, which has a violent crime rate of only 386.3 per 100,000. That’s about one-fifth the rate of violent crime in the U.K. And this has trended down since the ban on “assault weapons” ended in 2004.

In the U.K., the weapon of choice to use in a violent crime is the knife. In 2006, there was one knife crime committed in Britain for every 374 people. In the U.S. in 2006, there was one gun crime for every 750 people. In other words, a person was twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the U.K. as he was a gun crime in the United States.

What about guns? The media frenzy that followed the Dunblane massacre led the British government to pass the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Handgun owners were required to turn their guns over to the government, and those who sought to follow the law did so. But the Act didn’t end mass shootings. Another one occurred in 2010. However, within 10 years after the gun ban was enacted, gun crimes had almost doubled. British police are now arming themselves in response to armed gangs. Meanwhile, British citizens are helpless against attacks by criminals wielding knives, clubs, rocks, ropes, chains, axes and anything else that can be used as a weapon.

It also did not have the effect of ending gun crimes. From April 2010 through March 2011, there were 60 shooting homicides in the U.K., despite an almost complete ban on guns. And the number of annual shootings continues to increase.

What the law has done is make criminals out of law-abiding citizens, as in the case of Paul Clarke, a taxi driver who found a shotgun in his yard and turned it into the police only to be arrested for possessing it, and Iraq War veteran Danny Nightingale, who was given a Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had trained. That gun was packed in his bags by colleagues when he left Iraq to bury two friends who were killed in action. When the gun was located, Nightingale was forced to plead guilty to possessing it in order to avoid a five-year sentence.

Since the “assault weapons” ban in the United States ended in 2004, gun crimes in the United States have decreased. Not only that, but according to statistics by the Department of Justice, as the number of guns per 1,000 U.S. citizens has increased, the number of serious violent crimes per 1 million population has dropped.

Now to the mood of the country. Americans have been pushed and pushed until they are near the brink. Much of the blame for their anger falls on a government that is out of touch with middle America and tone deaf to its pleas. Most Americans see Congresses past and present inserting fingers into every aspect of daily life: whether it’s the amount of water that can pass through a toilet or the type of light bulb can be used or how much ethanol has to be in gasoline or how one can use his own property or what type of health insurance he must pay for. Now comes the threat that law-abiding Americans will have to surrender their guns — which Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (Communist-Calif.) proposed bill will require — and be restricted from purchasing a gun simply because it looks frightening, carries a high-capacity magazine and a bunch of pointed-headed, intellectual, overeducated elitists have decided it is not “needed” for hunting. And banning large capacity magazines is attacking a problem that is statistically insigificant.

The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights — as were all the first 10 Amendments — to restrict what government can do. It was designed to ensure that Americans could deter or, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government — you know, the type of government that Representative Jerrold Nadler (Communist-N.Y.) would institute because he believes, as he told a reporter recently, “that the state should have a monopoly on legitimate violence.” When the state has “a monopoly on legitimate violence,” Americans are no longer citizens; they are subjects. Americans will not become subjects.

The 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to ensure Americans could hunt or defend themselves against criminals, so the argument that we “don’t need” guns with “large capacity clips (sic)” — by the way, the proper word is magazines — is a non sequitur. How do I know this? Here are the words of some of our Founding Fathers:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good — George Washington

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, –who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them… — George Mason, The Virginia Ratifying Convention

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry

Despite what you and those of your ilk seem to believe, it is not the job of Congress or the President to decide what Americans “need” or for what purpose. Americans are quite capable of deciding that for themselves. Nowhere does the Constitution give you the authority to legislate weapons in any way. Nor does the President have this authority, as all laws are to come from the legislative branch, per Article 1, Section 8.

Many, if not most, Americans feel there are already ample gun laws in place. In fact, an argument can be made that many if not all current gun laws violate the Constitution — not that unConstitutional laws seem to bother you people. But I can assure you that, should a bill be passed by Congress and signed by the President that in any way approaches the one being proposed by Feinstein, there will be blood in the streets once Federal agents begin knocking on doors of gun owners to fingerprint and register them. Feinstein’s proposed bill makes many weapons non-transferable, which is the equivalent of weapons confiscation. This will be resisted, as will registration and fingerprinting of gun owners.

And you can tell the President that any executive orders that infringes on the 2nd Amendment will also be ignored and resisted. You see, your passage of laws — or executive orders or whatever you want to call them — that are unConstitutional do not make them any less unConstitutional. Nor does consent to those unConstitutional laws by the Supreme Court give them validity.

Our rights come from our Creator, not government. Therefore, government cannot take them away.

In closing, I want to urge you to consider at great length what you will be starting if, in response to a senseless criminal act, you pass additional burdensome laws on people who have no desire nor inclination to commit criminal acts with the firearms they own — laws that would not reduce gun crime or prevent future Sandy Hook-style massacres but would only add burden and expense to lawful, legitimate gun owners. Gun crimes are committed by criminals. Criminals are criminals because they choose to ignore the laws. Writing additional laws will not serve as a deterrent.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by gang bangers and criminals, many of whom are prohibited from possessing a gun under current laws. For the most part, they obtain their guns illegally: either on the black market or by theft. Those committing gun crimes with legitimately purchased weapons are rare outliers.

As proven in Great Britain and Australia, additional gun control laws will neither end nor deter those with criminal intent from committing criminal acts. They will serve only to put the law-abiding public in further danger. That danger will come from two places: the criminal class that will see undefended citizens as easy targets and the Federal agents who will be tasked with enforcing unConstitutional laws.

But those Federal agents tasked to register and/or confiscate weapons will be putting themselves at risk as well, and any violence that results will be on your hands. The threat of arrest or death will cause some to give up their arms peaceably. But as was the case on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord when the British came to confiscate arms and weapons, there will be many patriots who rise up to resist this usurpation. I have spoken to a number of current and former members of the U.S. military who say they will be a part of that resistance group. These are people who have already shown a willingness to die in order to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

I pray to God that you enter into any gun control negotiations prayerfully and with a full understanding of the mood of the country. You have been warned.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Livingston

[Editor’s note: In order to encourage a thoughtful and meaningful dialogue, comment to this column will be strictly monitored. The moderator has been instructed to remove all comments that contain ad hominem attacks on the author or other commenters. Make your case in a civil manner. Be respectful of other opinions. Do not disparage others if you want your comments to remain. Understand that the comment policy will be strictly enforced. -- BL]

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • CZ52

    If only this could be hammered into the brains of each and every senator and representative. Unfortunately even if every person who posts on this site copied and sent it to their respective senators and representatives only a handfull would bother to actualy read it and respond personaly to the letter. Most, if they respond at all, will respond with a well craftid but mealy mouthed answer that talks all around the subject matter in the letter and actualy says nothing.

    • Harold Olsen

      If only this could be hammered into the brains of each and every senator and representative.
      ___________________________________________
      What brains?

      • GALT

        ” The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
        blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. ”

        http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/tree-liberty-quotation

        He was probably alluding more to the “hammering”?

      • Patriot

        It is a complete waste of time, when we all realize that the political establishment is all part of the same cabal and never have had the people’s interest at heart, either party, only then will we understand what we are dealing with! Knowing how to solve the problem starts with who is the problem.

      • ernest

        to Harold Olsen, if you look close most of the law makers are lawyers ( the more crime the more money they make )

      • http://naver samurai

        I see that Galt has posted a quote the Samurai has posted on this site many times. I dare or invite Obama bin Laden to come to my house and try to take my firearm, which is at arms length away. If they come for our guns, can we fight them?

        http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/

        I’ll tell them, oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhh yyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. BTW, great article Bob. Can you get this posted in newspapers across this country?

        “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

        George Washington

        *I’d like to see any 5th columner try to prove me wrong on this. Only respected historical sources, no secular or atheist sources.

      • GALT

        Not exactly sam…….you see the “context of the quote” is included in the link.

        Without it, actually meaning as intended, can be misconstrued or subject to
        mischief by unscrupulous people……take for example, this quote.

        “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

      • http://naver samurai

        Ah, yes! Here Galt tries to say that he is smarter than the Samurai, but yet, makes no logical sense in his posting. I guess that you are a byproduct of the dumbing down of America. Here is how Obama bin Laden ius going to use innmocent children to advance his destroying our God-given rights under the 2nd Amendment:

        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/15/Obama-to-Announce-Gun-Ban-Surrounded-by-Children

        Sheesh! I guess that Obama bin Laden will even take advantage of the innocence of children to advance his facsist ideals. Remember, Hitler did they same thing and broadcast it over the whole nation by radio and film. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out Galt.

        “…to attain a serious end it behooves not to stop at any means or count the victims sacrificed for the sake of that end.”

        The Wise Elders of Zion
        Artilce 15

        *This sounds like Obama bin Laden, 5th columners, and all libturd/progturd traitors and cowards. This would include Jeffy and Galt.

      • Walter & Renee Agard

        Well ernest that is right, “Most all of these politicians are lawyers ( Liars ) even people who try to convince us on the air ,but they forget that we are human beings like themselves and also have a mind maybe better than theirs’. just because some people didn,t to the same school (profession), dosen’t mean that we are stupid and have no sense..

    • TIME

      Dear Galt,

      Have you ever looked into: ” David Wynn Miller’s” work? I think you would find it quite fascinating – let alone very compelling.

      BTW Folks ~ That goes for all of you as well, ~ again I come back to {words} mean everything, ~ and within “all” words on a legal doucment the words are the very backbone of how you can either loose or keep your freedom / Liberty. Mostly all Contracts known to mankind are ~ 100% Illegal. David Wynn Miller’s work is outstanding. Learn it, understand its TRUE value to all things that involve the LAW as well its applications.

      Peace and Love, Shalom

      • GALT

        Did a quick search…….the bio on his website ( business ) seems to suggest
        that from a legal perspective the concepts are the same freeman…..which
        is to be expected…..since they work.

        I will keep looking…..but if you are aware of anything that offers a more
        aggressive posture……..rather than the purely “defensive” posture available
        using the law…….UCC, etc; a more direct link to it would be appreciated.

      • TIME

        Dear Galt,

        He has a 6.5 hour long presentation on ~ The LAW ~ of what is just beautiful in all respects. I will have to go through the full presentation again, as David points out over and over its all within the word play, as David has invented the ~ ” REMEDY” ~ to that word play its just pure beautiful.

        BTW – I think I saw something on: Before its News, where he has a Video feed, as well on his web sight he has links to his viedo’s.

        Peace and Love, Shalom

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS!

        On February 15, 2013

        SUPREME COURT TO HEAR OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE!

        It was reviewed by the chief justice and he personally referred it to the full court.

        Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy
        Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy
        Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice
        Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013
        Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court

        Go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKM27IcbGs

        Pray to Almighty God. The Usurper must be removed from the Office and sent to Jail.

        “When he is judged, LET HIM BE FOUND GUILTY, and LET HIS PRAYER BECOME SIN. LET HIS DAYS BE FEW, and LET ANOTHER TAKE HIS OFFICE.” (Psalm 109:7, 8) Amen.

        SAVE AMERICA !!!

      • Bill

        Hi Alondra,
        It is great to hear your comments. I like the idea that your are a fighter, not afraid and true to your beliefs. I wish our polititians were like you

      • sam1966

        I agree with you Alondra, but read Psalms 109:6 – 20. It’ll tell what should happen to him. Here is something that shows we patriots are mad as h*** and we aren’t going to take any more:

        http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/patriot-groups-to-burn-obama-in-effigy-on-january-19-2013/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

        “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”

        George Washington

      • aebjr

        Try “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat. Besides the 5000 Year Leap, this is probably one of the most important works, I have ever read. Very liberating.
        Strength In Honor

    • Chas

      I think you’ve nailed it. Bob has presented the most logical, truthful, and important argument I’ve seen regarding this matter.

      • Texas Ride

        Chas, I ditto that. Livingston out-did himself on this article. Wish I could “click on Execellent” a couple hundred times.

        As far as congress, they could care less. They have joined the darkside and it is “everyone for themselves!” Americans are going to have to defend themselves, no one is going to do it for us.

      • Jana

        Chas,
        You are right, Bob nailed it. Even in the title An Open Letter to the ELECTED CLASS. That is exactly what they think of themselves too. They are a class unto themselves. A class that is way above us, unless we have the money to buy their votes!

        I am also noticing the wording of the new proposed bill GUN CONTROL. They want to control guns, control the sale of ammunitions, control the small farmers so they can’t grow veggies to sell to their neighbors. Control control control. What part of they want to control us do we the people NOT understand???

      • JeffH

        Chas, I have to agree. In light of the overall political climate in general and most certainly the continuous call by the anti-gun/2nd Amendment contingent to ban, confiscate or further restrict lawfull guns and lawfull gun owners…Mr. Livingston’s commentary is one of his best yet and there have been many just as good.

        The Second Amendment:

        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 original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

        The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a “collective right.” The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

        There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

        More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right

        After James Madison’s Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it’s the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

        As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
        “A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe’s analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear ‘their private arms.’ The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights.” (Halbrook, Stephen P. “The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment”.
        http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

      • ranger09

        I would have to rate this as one of Bobs Best. But as we all know THEY do not work for us or the Country. When it comes to the people everything ends up in file 13.

      • Kate8

        This is an excellent article, and I wholly agree, as well.

        We do need to bear in mind that bloodshed is exactly what the elite are after. They’ve been provoking us for a very long time, and they do know that the “laws” they are passing are not only unlawful, but insane. They are also well aware that genocide will follow any disarming of the people, as that is the only reason it is ever done. The fact is, they want us gone, whatever it takes.

        I was hoping that, just maybe, our military would step up and do their sworn duty to protect the Constitution and the people from enemies both foreign and domestic, as they are well aware of the danger we find ourselves in. This hope is fading with every passing day, and it looks as if we might, indeed, have to shed some blood in order to declare a winner. I hope I am wrong about this.

        I was just reading an article about the disarming of the colonists by the British, and it was because of this that they made provision that this could never again happen. The fact that this government is determined to disarm us despite their clear lack of authority to do so proves their evil intent, and is all the more reason that we must defy any move toward this end.

        The fact is, the elite are ready to have done with Americans, and they do intend to accomplish this. Everyone needs to bear this in mind when threatened with arrest (or worse) for not handing over their arms. I won’t turn out well either way.

      • Old Henry

        Here is a good article from Freedm Outpost regarding what you should do if / when they come for your guns.

        http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-ha
        ve-a-responsibility-to-fight/

      • Kate8

        Old H – While I agree with the article you posted, I also know the likely scenario:

        It’s 3 a.m., and suddenly there is loud knocking at your door. You open the door and floodlights go on all around you, bright enough to be disorienting. You are stunned, and a voice is yelling, demanding your firearms.

        You look around to see a swarm of beings all dressed in black body armor, all holding high-powered guns pointed right at your head. They are tearing your house apart, still demanding your firearms. You never even had the time or the presence to grab your gun or, if you did, it seems pretty paltry up next to the light, the noise and the high-tech weaponry pointed at you. You might fire off a shot, but the fact that you were holding a gun at all would probably have gotten you shot already.

        I think the guv has figured all this out before hand, so I doubt they are very worried about us using our firearms. We’ve already heard reports that soldiers were seen training out in our woods, with the big floodlights and all. This is an area where lots of people are armed.

        We need to get real about what’s coming. Beating the chest and talking about putting anyone who comes to get guns six feet under is more fantasy than fact in today’s world…
        they aren’t going to announce when they are coming, and they are going to assume that they will be resisted.

        Obama et al don’t care one bit about the Constitution. They are foreign and domestic enemies, and have overthrown our system. They do not feel bound to abide by our laws, nor do they intend to. That we try to claim our rights makes them laugh.

        What we need is equal weaponry to what they have. Or a really big miracle.

        I think we really need a viable plan here. If anyone has any reassurance about this, I’d love to hear it.

      • sam1966

        I also back up what Bob Livingston said in his article. Great one Bob! Sook Young and I give you a standing olvation (sp)! If we lived in the same state, I’d vote for you for office in a heartbeat, if you didn’t mind standing next to the Samurai. It is good to know that we are one the same side, fighting the good fight. Here is something for you patriots that may live in New York State or City:

        http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assult-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html

        I know the source is from the MSM, but it was all I could find at the spur of the moment. I guess that libturds believe in violating our God-given rights as are written in the Constitution. Keep up the good fight fellow patriots. All 5th columners be prepared to feel the heat. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

        “No country upon earth had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America…much to be regretted…would it be were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence (GOD) has pointed us so plainly.”

        George Washington, 1788

      • GALT

        Also sam, when adding things or altering meaning, to a quote, it is
        proper form to acknowledge such alteration……….

        “No country upon earth had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America…much to be regretted…would it be were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence ( Rhode Island ) has pointed us so plainly.”

        George Washington, 1788 ( precise point of origin added )

      • Old Henry

        Kate:

        If someone was banging on your door late at night / early morning would go answer it unarmed?

        How about getting together with like-minded neighbors and working out a plan for different senerios that might play out. Does someone have an old air raid siren for example. It could be used to alert everyone in the area. Could you set up a network of people to call each other? do you have ex-military in your area who might have some good pointers? Don’t know Katie, just tossing out some ideas, but I do fuly “get” what you are saying.

        What you dewscribed sounds a lot like what the caller on Alex Jones’ show was describing about New Orleans.

      • sam1966

        Trying to rewrite our history, eh Galt? This posting shows that you really are less intelligent. Here is something showing politicians are not backing up the policies of Obama bin Laden:

        http://www.conservativevideos.com/2013/01/politicians-refuse-to-post-lawn-sign-saying-home-is-proudly-gun-free/

        I see that the pretenders support for things is fading faster than he imagined. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out Galt.

        “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.”

        Thomas Jefferson
        Letter to Benjamin Waterhouse

    • http:www.nhpatriots.org Art

      You got the “hammer to the brain ” part right…lol…they know what they are doing…they think they are kings and lords over us and not public servants…that is a major part of the problem…everything you said was true…

    • Jeff

      Bob:

      In your concept of the personal militia, who does the well regulating? If it’s each individual citizen, then you’re saying the founders put the first clause in the Amendment just for the heck of it? Why didn’t they say “To insure that the Government never overreaches in the governing of its citizens, the right of the people to bear arms equal in strength to those controlled by the Government shall not be infringed.”

      If the state does not have a monopoly in the use of legitimate force, you want to go back to the fictional days of Dodge City? In reality, the Sheriff confiscated guns when people came to town. Now you nutcases want to bring your Glocks into the bar with you. What could go wrong?

      If we, speaking through our legislators, decide on X but Citizen A uses his arsenal to stall initiative X, isn’t that giving him a veto based on his guns? Is that what Washington had in mind? And if it is, does that mean we have to live that way for all times? The founders may have thought that hanging a 14-year-old for stealing food didn’t violate the 8th Amendment. Does that mean we are stuck with that interpretation for all time? I don’t think so. We are not obliged to interpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment the same way Washington did.

      • Hawkeye

        Maybe you would like to put your spin on the fact that the law allows thousands of baby’s to be killed every year in abortion mills backed with taxpayers money. The fact that more kids are killed in car accidents in the USA so maybe we can outlaw kids in cars. The issue is the
        attack on the Constitution and if they can undermine that document then we are all destined to be subjects.

        • Jeff

          Loved ya in MASH, but back then you’d never have said an interpretation of the Constitution is the same as an attack on it. Why do you right wingers always assume you know the right answer and anyone who disagrees with you is not simply wrong but attacking the Constitution?

      • steve

        Anyone with common sense know of alcohol and guns are a bad mix,go study the old West, Cowboys came into town to blowoff months of stress and were given poisoned or bad whiskey.
        It is an interesting parallel that 95% of all juveniles who have involved in school shootings were on some kind of psychiatric drug, drugs, which clearly have warning labels stating the mental havoc they can wreak.

      • JC

        Because there is nothing to interpret in the Constitution. It is quite clear and requires no one to twist it to their own purpose. No Compromise…None!

      • GALT

        Ah, the joy of “interpretation”……which would work if the “constitution” was written
        in, say French…..which would have been really interesting since “standardized
        French” didn’t exist in 1789…..which brings us to point:

        1.) The criteria for a “statute or law” is that it’s meaning and intent, be clear. If
        a “statute or law” requires any sort of “interpretation” as to meaning or purpose,
        it is by definition “unconstitutional” or “invalid”. ( the origin for this can be traced
        to Aristotle’s Rules of Logic. ) If we follow this train of logic, if any part of the
        “constitution” did in fact require such “interpretation”, it would be
        “unconstitutional”…….which it clearly CAN NOT BE! ( since it is the “constitution”? )

        If we a truly seeking to determine meaning and intent regarding the second
        article of the Bill of Rights, under the principles of common law ( in force at
        the time ) and “stare decisis” ( precedent ), would not the “previous law”,
        be the primary source of this meaning and intent?

        In Article VI of the Articles of Confederation we find:

        No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.

        You will note that there is no reference to : the right of the people to
        keep and bear arms,
        here and if one is seeking to establish meaning
        and intent…….or claim that meaning and intent rests with ” a well regulated and disciplined militia,”……….then there would have been no need to alter the
        language…….as that is clearly the “intent” here……..and much of what was
        contained in the Articles of Confederation, was transferred directly to
        the Constitution.

        It would seem that if one is going to “argue”……. “meaning and intent”,
        it would be necessary to both acknowledge the “primary authority” as it
        pertains to the relevant “legal precedent”, and then explain why the
        language was “changed”……..especially if one is seeking to demonstrate
        that the “meaning and intent” was the same as intended in the Articles?

        “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, unless you really need one?

        • Jeff

          I agree. When you read the 2nd Amendment, bearing in mind that the Constitution was essentially a compact among the States to cede certain powers to the Federal Government, it is clear it relegates the regulation of arms to the States. Of course, this was before we had a standing Army. The interesting issue is whether Mapp v. Ohio creates a personal right to arms in the way it guarantees that no State can abridge any of the personal rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Pre-1961, Congress could pass no law abridging freedom of speech, but States could.

          I would argue that Mapp does not apply to the 2nd Amendment because it never guaranteed a right to private citizens; its guarantee is to the State. If anyone is to do any regulating, wouldn’t it have to be the State?

          Now, this interpretation is not particularly convenient for me politically as I believe given modern transportation, that State regulation of guns is pretty weak as long as there are states where guns are as ubiquitous as Bibles. I favor reasonable regulations at the Federal level because I believe every Constitutional provision has to be read with an implied “reasonableness” provision.

      • http://www.facebook.com/don.white.77736310 Don White

        no we are to roll over and play dead as we haye on every right they have taken a way from us they are trying to make us in to there robots they must wake up before they push us in to something none of us want

        • Jeff

          What rights have been taken from you?

      • DaveH

        Jeff says — “In your concept of the personal militia, who does the well regulating? If it’s each individual citizen, then you’re saying the founders put the first clause in the Amendment just for the heck of it?”.
        What part of — “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” do you not understand, Jeff?
        More:
        http://gunowners.org/op0848.htm

        • Jeff

          You repeated my question, but you didn’t answer it.
          In response to your question, you cannot understand the meaning of the 2nd clause without understanding how it is modified by the first. If you pretend it doesn’t exist, it makes your interpretation a bit more plausible, but it does exist.

      • DaveH

        Jeff asks — “If the state does not have a monopoly in the use of legitimate force, you want to go back to the fictional days of Dodge City?”.
        No, we want to keep the real days of personal defense as evidenced the increasing number of states getting out of the way so that their citizens can protect themselves with concealed weapons. Unlike the fantasy world of Liberal Progressives where the police get there in time to take notes over our dead bodies:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

        • Jeff

          Do you have an explanation for why our gun death rate is astronomically higher than other comparable countries (Canada, Australia, Japan, Western Europe)?

      • DaveH

        Note from these charts the decreasing number of murders and violent crimes since 1991:
        http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

        So we’ve had less gun control, more guns held by Americans, many more states with shall-issue concealed-carry laws, and yet many fewer gun deaths and violent crimes since 1991?
        And Jeff calls US his childish names like “nutcase”?

        You gotta love these Liberal Progressives who think your lives (and wallets) should be in their hands. NOT.

      • DaveH

        Jeff says — “If we, speaking through our legislators, decide on X but Citizen A uses his arsenal to stall initiative X, isn’t that giving him a veto based on his guns?”.
        First the Liberal Progressives attacked the 2nd Amendment claiming that a “well-regulated militia” meant one that was organized by the State. That was so thoroughly shot down in the courts that they no longer have the gall to present such fallacious arguments to court.
        Then they claimed that the States weren’t covered by the Bill of Rights. That was shot down in the courts.
        So, if the States supposedly weren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment, who was? That could only leave the Federal Government. Now they want the Federal Government to meddle with gun ownership. Do these Liberal Progressives have any respect whatever for Law? Of course not. They just want their way, like the little spoiled brats that they are.

        • Jeff

          Jeff says — “If we, speaking through our legislators, decide on X but Citizen A uses his arsenal to stall initiative X, isn’t that giving him a veto based on his guns?”.

          “First the Liberal Progressives attacked the 2nd Amendment claiming that a “well-regulated militia” meant one that was organized by the State. That was so thoroughly shot down in the courts that they no longer have the gall to present such fallacious arguments to court.
          Then they claimed that the States weren’t covered by the Bill of Rights. That was shot down in the courts.
          So, if the States supposedly weren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment, who was? That could only leave the Federal Government. Now they want the Federal Government to meddle with gun ownership. Do these Liberal Progressives have any respect whatever for Law? Of course not. They just want their way, like the little spoiled brats that they are.”

          In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States meaning that the States were required to provide citizens with free speech rights, search and seizure protections, right to counsel, etc. It was largely progressives who were making the arguments in favor of the Bill of Rights protections applying to the States. Legal protection of minorities and poor people was never a priority on the right.

          The question with the 2nd Amendment is what does it mean? The Scalito Court has ruled 5-4 that it confers a personal right to a gun, but even that ruling doesn’t address reasonable restrictions on the type of gun, clip size, background checks, gun shows, etc. I believe a plain reading of the Amendment dictates a different conclusion because the Scalito interpretation essentially ignores the first clause. Does the term “well regulated” mean nothing? Notice the 1st Amendment doesn;t say anything about a “well regulated” press or “well regulated” religious institutions. What could be different about guns? Could it be they intended for guns to be regulated by the State?

          Who else would be doing the “well regulating”? Vigilantes? The KKK? Private racist militias?

          I won’t sink to your level and address the “spoiled brats” reference, but to hear the right wing squeal about the temerity of Obama to get re-elected when they have pronounced their indignation and their intent to “take the country back” should certainly qualify.

      • DaveH

        Jeff says — “Is that what Washington had in mind? And if it is, does that mean we have to live that way for all times?
        No, it certainly does not, Jeff. That’s why there are provisions by which to change the Constitution — Legally. I realize that acting Lawfully isn’t something that appeals to you Liberal Progressives, Jeff, but you’ll just have to live with it.

        Jeff says — “We are not obliged to interpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment the same way Washington did”.
        But the Leaders ARE obliged to obey the Letter of the Law (even if they don’t like it), Jeff. If that doesn’t suit you Liberal Progressives, Jeff, then change it the Legal Way:
        Article 5 of the Constitution:
        “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate”.

        There is one and only one real reason that Liberal Progressive Leaders fight so hard to render us defenseless. That is so they can subjugate us with little fear of recourse from us.
        With the current way that they reach with impugnity into our wallets and choices, imagine what it will be like when we are defenseless against them?

        • Jeff

          The Constitution is “changed” every time the Supreme Court makes a ruling affecting its interpretation. Every time technology changes and the Court has to reinterpret the meaning of reasonable search and seizure, the Constitution changes a bit. You do not need to amend the Constitution to reinterpret a Constitutional provision that is clearly meant to be reinterpreted over the years. It’s why the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is worded with language requiring constant re-interpretation.

          The Constitution is not just the document but over 200 years of decisions by the Supreme court beginning with Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution does not specifically say the Supreme Court shall have the final say in interpreting the Constitution, but the Supreme Court so ruled in 1803 and that ruling hasn’t been seriously challenged in over 200 years. It is as much a part of the Constitution as Article 1 or Amendment 1.

          Are you suggesting the 2nd Amendment has no limitations? That it should not be read with an implied “reasonableness” clause? Where does it say felons can’t have guns? Where does it say mentally ill people can’t have guns? These are reasonable restrictions we have enacted into law because the Constitution is not a suicide pact..

      • DaveH

        Jeff says — ” If you pretend it doesn’t exist, it makes your interpretation a bit more plausible, but it does exist”.
        Obviously Jeff didn’t read the article I linked to which thoroughly shoots down any claim he has made.
        Here is the whole 2nd Amendment:
        “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”.
        Does the first part negate the second part? Absolutely not.
        Even your President admits that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms, Jeff:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ8Dba_TZgw

        I have proven that your entire opening comment is fallacious, Jeff. It looks like you’re going to need to resort back to your previous puerile behavior since you can’t debate factually or logically.

        • Jeff

          The Supreme Court so ruled in the Webb case. Obama was stating a fact. Current law is that it is a personal right. The Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is final. I believe their interpretation is wrong and will eventually be overturned.

          But even the Webb decision does not dispose of other issues like types of guns, clip sizes, background checks, gun shows, etc.

        • Jeff

          Do you have to go there, Dave? You have proven nothing except your penchant for the personal insult. We are talking about two different things. I read the 2nd Amendment differently from the way you do. It seems to me it is specifically leaving the regulation of guns to the States. Our right wing Supreme Court has ruled it is a personal right. Clearly, that is current law, but a future Supreme court may well reinstate earlier interpretations.

      • DaveH

        Jeff says — “Do you have an explanation for why our gun death rate is astronomically higher than other comparable countries (Canada, Australia, Japan, Western Europe)?”.

        Different people, different cultures, different heritages.

        And why do you Liberal Progressives always try to turn it into a “gun death” issue, when the real issue is “murder rates”? People don’t care how they are killed; they just don’t want to be killed.
        Incidentally, Jeff, you Liberal Progressives have blood on your hands for all the murder victims who might have been able to save themselves if you Liberal Progressives hadn’t made it so difficult to protect themselves. What next for you guys — declawing the animals?

        How do you explain that our Murder Rates have gone down even in the face of more guns being held by the public, Jeff? Doesn’t that fly hard into the faces of your Liberal Progressives’ dire warnings of more murders with more guns?

        • Jeff

          “Incidentally, Jeff, you Liberal Progressives have blood on your hands for all the murder victims who might have been able to save themselves if you Liberal Progressives hadn’t made it so difficult to protect themselves. What next for you guys — declawing the animals?”

          What are you talking about? There are more guns than people in the country and you’re complaining that whatever anemic gun laws we have are hampering people’s self defense? Even you have to realize how ridiculous you sound. So, instead of inconveniencing the gun people, every teacher should be armed? How do they do it in Austria, Dave?

      • Texas Ride

        JC, Great Point!

        The Constitution is very clear and needs no “interpretation!”

        To compromise with evil, means evil wins! Compromise has “baby-stepped” us to near
        total tyranny by the government. Stand-up for what we know is true and is the right thing to do…

        • Jeff

          I’d love to hear your “lecture” at the University of Texas Law School.

      • rocketride

        You have, among other things, a basic misunderstanding of the phrase “well-regulated militia”. As the term well-regulated was used in the late 18th century, it meant something like self-correcting or self-guiding. A clock which kept time well without being frequently reset or adjusted, but only needing to be wound up occasionally was said to be well-regulated. So your question about who (external to the militia) will do the regulating is nonsensical. Bet you THOUGHT you were clever, didn’t you?

        • Jeff

          Why is the phrase used only in the 2nd Amendment? Why not in the First? I don’t buy your argument for a minute, and I notice you cite no support for it.

      • DaveH

        Don’t get me wrong, Jeff. I love that you Liberal Progressives comment on this board. There is no better way for the readers to see what you guys are really made of.
        Thank you, Jeff.

        • Jeff

          Dave, you read only the most right wing dreck available and you assume you’re always right about everything. You love to personally insult anyone with the temerity to disagree with you and your right wing sources. Yet, you have not responded to my post debunking your claim that all progressive ideas are only designed to get control. I listed many of the advances of the past 100+ years pushed by progressives and called “socialist” or “radical” by the conservatives of the day. I’ll believe you are capable of rational discussion when you can tell me, without personal insult, why you believe all those initiatives are phony, counter-productive, or designed to enslave the masses.

      • Jeff

        “I’m talking about those who are afraid to carry guns to defend themselves because they are either outlawed by you Liberal Progressives, or they are weak-minded enough to worry about your Liberal Progressive ridicule, Jeff,”

        Dave, you sometimes say things that require a bit of thought to be dismissed out of hand. This is not one of those. What laws do we have that prevent people from owning guns? And are you suggesting that my exercising my 1st Amendment right to express my opinion about guns might have a chilling effect on someone buying a gun? I only with it were true.

        • 45caliber

          Jeff:

          It is not necessarily the laws that have been passed that we are concerned about – it is those that the politicians want to enact. If the law Feinstein wants passed goes into affect, it will have a definate affect on what preventing people from owning guns of their choice. Incidently, it does allow her to keep her own guns – which seems wrong to me. Why should she be allowed to keep and carry a gun for her safely when I cannot do the same thing for me and my family?

          • brotherpatriot

            Welcome to the Elite double standard…they expect special privileges over the common citizen. Like…their own health care, retirement package after serving just one term, exemption from laws that would prosecute them if they do sexual offenses, vote their own pay raises…etc, etc, etc…need we go on?

            Don’t be surprised…these people are criminals. We need to completely flush our government & put into positions of authority those people with a proven track record of serving the Constitution. These people also CAN NOT be connected with the secret society that currently controls virtually all aspects of our lives because they have a confliction of interests. They have loyalty to their secret brotherhood over the country they reside in because they have sworn death oaths of loyalty. A great book to read in order to understand fully this concept is, “Brotherhood of Darkness”, by Dr. Stanley Monteith.

            In darkness and secrecy evil festers & thrives. In the eyes of God & out in the open of His Light…evil can not stand. This is why we must openly as a society, address the great secret double lives that these people live. The symbolic meanings all about us goes greatly unnoticed by the general public. However, once you become aware…you begin to see it all, everywhere.

            Back in 1820-1830′s…a movement occurred that had EVERY right to do so and it wasn’t a misunderstanding that caused it to occur. It was the evidence of the actions at the time that caused it to occur…the name of this was the Anti-Masonic Movement. If you wish to understand why it occurred then you need to do the proper research & triangulate the truth. The below link is a start for you. I can provide another link that shows what John Q Adams (our former President) had to say about it all, as well.

            http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/convention.html

            God Bless.

          • nc

            BROTHERPATRIOT, what is your source for the presence of all of those SECRET SOCIETIES and its record for getting them exposed and broken up????????? Surely something this grave cannot go unpunished! You must stay in doors until this plague is wiped out or if you go outside run to the nearest hole in the desert with a case of beans!

          • Jeff

            I agree. If you want to get rid of semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, there should be no “grandfather” clause. That may not be politically possible.

          • DaveH

            I trust that you are including the Government in that disarmament, Jeff?

          • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

            Jeff…because we know how these people work regarding how they manipulate the laws…we can NOT give them any further progress regarding gun control. Because once they get a law in place…they domino stack later laws to achieve what they wanted to do in the first place.

            We must resist the enforcement of gun registration as it’s just an earlier step to them taking our guns away completely.

            God Bless & Happy New Year, everyone.

          • DaveH

            Earlier, Jeff said — “Yet, you have not responded to my post debunking your claim that all progressive ideas are only designed to get control”.
            There is no way that you could “debunk” that, Jeff, unless you’re going to attempt to convince the readers that you can now read minds. My claim is strictly deductive. See below.
            It is rather obvious that the statistics tell an entirely different story than Jeff or his cohorts want us to believe. Any body who really cares can read this book to get more proof:
            http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358194490&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime

            So what are the possibilities for the Liberal Progressive gun beliefs?
            1) They are so purposely ignorant that all the facts in the world wouldn’t convince them?
            2) They have ulterior motives, which explains the fervor and the purposeful misinformation they provide the public on gun-control issues.

            Granted, most of the Liberal Progressive Followers probably belong in Group 1. But the Leaders have no excuse for being in Group 1. They were elected to lead us, so they certainly should put in the necessary time in for studying issues thoroughly before they attempt to take away our Freedoms. So most likely they are in Group 2.
            So why would Group 2 work so hard to mislead the citizens? I can think of no other reason than that they want to disarm us, as Leaders have done throughout history so they can have absolute Power over their Subjects.
            See next comment for a link to a book that all concerned citizens should read.

          • DaveH
          • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

            We’re NOT a democracy. The majority has NO right to impose it’s will on the minority. We are a Constitutional Republic. We have a Declaration of Independence. It establishs our right to revolt against “the” government on specific conditions.

          • Bob666

            “We’re NOT a democracy. The majority has NO right to impose it’s will on the minority. We are a Constitutional Republic. We have a Declaration of Independence. It establishs our right to revolt against “the” government on specific conditions”.

            The term republic is generic and you are correct that our form of republic is linked to our constitution. That document defines how our government functions and how elections are determined-by popular vote. If 50.1% of the voting population disagrees with you, is that tyranny?

          • Brian

            The election of the POTUS is NOT done by “popular vote”, it is done through the Electoral College. Which in and of itself was shown this year, and previous years, to be extremely flawed and should be replaced with direct popular voting; with ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS BEING GIVEN A MANDATORY RECEIPT FOR SAID VOTE!

          • Bob666

            your point being?

          • Bill

            Here we see your true motivations, Jeff

        • DaveH

          You’re showing your ignorance again, Jeff.
          There are only four states which actually abide by the 2nd Amendment. Those are Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, and Arizona, where the citizens are allowed to carry arms concealed or openly. The rest either restrict concealed-carry completely or have myriad other gun laws.
          No, I’m not going to list the gun-laws for each state. You’ll have to do some of your own homework.

          • Jeff

            Connecticut has some of the “strictest” gun laws in the country, but look at the arsenal the shooter’s mother was able to put together. It protected her well, too. The laws you’re talking about are mostly about background checks. Most gun nuts seem to be able to acquire about anything they desire short of machine guns.

          • DaveH

            Jeff is still flailing about, grasping desperately for those straws.

          • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

            Unless morality: God’s rules for action and interaction, return to America, expect things to get worse.

          • Dave67

            Hey DaveH,

            Care to explain how “liberal” MA has over 100 less gun deaths than AZ does and both states have the same population numbers?

            Here is some info for you to discount…

            Arizona has almost four times as many adults in state prison as Massachusetts: (40,627 vs. 11,316). Because, nationally, it costs about $26,000 per year to house a non-violent offender, this means Arizona spend hundreds of millions on incarceration more than Massachusetts, one of the very few areas where Arizona public expenditures exceed those of Massachusetts.

            Are we safer as a result of these staggering costs? The murder rate per 100,000 was 6.2 in Arizona vs. 2.8 in Massachusetts in 2011, well over twice as high. These differences in murder rates are substantial. The two states have nearly identical populations, but 405 Arizonans were murdered in 2011 compared with only 185 Massachusetts residents.

            And a lot of these differences are due to murders by firearm: Almost twice as many Arizonans (222) as residents of Massachusetts (122) died by firearm in 2011. Yet Arizona politicians have embraced gun ownership. One of their first actions after then-Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was nearly murdered two years ago was to officially name a state firearm. People die because of this fetish.

            And differences are not just reflected in the ultimate crime of murder. Firearm robberies per 100,000 are 45.47 in Arizona and 24.52 in Massachusetts. Similar differences are evident in firearm assaults (54.19 in Arizona, 30.81 in Massachusetts). Rapes are also more common in Arizona (34.9 per 100,000) than in Massachusetts (24.7 per 100,000). Put simply, you are less likely to be murdered or raped in Massachusetts than in Arizona. Likewise for being robbed or assaulted with a firearm.

            AZ is no “Civilized” society because oif lax gun rules DaveH.

          • JC

            Dave67 says:

            January 14, 2013 at 6:46 pm

            Hey DaveH,

            Care to explain how “liberal” MA has over 100 less gun deaths than AZ does and both states have the same population numbers?

            Here is some info for you to discount…

            Arizona has almost four times as many adults in state prison as Massachusetts: (40,627 vs. 11,316). Because, nationally, it costs about $26,000 per year to house a non-violent offender, this means Arizona spend hundreds of millions on incarceration more than Massachusetts, one of the very few areas where Arizona public expenditures exceed those of Massachusetts.
            ________________________________________________________________________

            I see you completely side stepped the massive illegal immigrant issue that Arizona faces with NO help from a Federal Govt. that is supposed to secure our borders. Having seen both situations I would say that Maine is in no danger of drug and human smuggling from tens of thousands of Canadians sneaking through the forest at night raping and killing as they go. Whereas in Arizona…we have a very different situation.

            There is no comparison here.

          • Dave67

            So you are saying JC that the crime rate differential is due to illegals? care to back your BS up?

            No? I thought not. I live in AZ. Do you even live in this country?

        • Capitalist at Birth

          Your thoughts instill a renewed desire to purchase more firearms and ammunition than ever before. Are you willing to attempt to disarm me personally? Or will you be a coward and send a gang of armed thugs?

          • Jeff

            They’ll have white coats and butterfly nets.

          • gunner

            White coats and butterfly nets may be all it takes to overpower you but the rest of us on this site won’t go as easily.

          • Stuart

            Jeff, it’s not the right to express your opinion as protected under the 1st amendment that would scare someone. It’s the mental contortion that you and people like you go through that leads you to reach an illogical conclusion from something that so simple and logic. The 2nd amendment is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Our foundation fathers understood full well what they were doing and they foresaw this day coming and foresaw sheepishness in people that would find any excuse to cower!

          • http://midcontent ridge runner

            Chitco is a good representation of total gun control, just like steerish California, and all gun free zones. Must be that drug gangs, drug dealers, and just all the crimminal eleements, have to be affilated wth the socialist democrat party. You the same morons that opened up the nut huts, and let loose the odd balls, who have killed with hammers, knives and even vehicles, more times than a firearm, about 10000 to 1. I notice the socialist democrat will not post all the gang members and crimminals that are out in society!

          • JC

            That is exactly right. Obama, Finesteen, Holder, Boxer…et al:
            The biggest gun salesmen in American Hiostory.
            Is this a great country or what? ;-)

          • George Washington

            I, being a full-blooded PATRIOT, do swear an OATH to defend this nation, my family and friends, with the tools of freedom, which cause people with evil deeds in mind, to cower. Fear of the armed citizen is a necessary deed, for it will force the weak willed to remain cowered, allowing the PATRIOT to rout out and destroy the freedom hating elite that has become this government! Government NEVER had the power to deny or restrict OUR rights, and I will ALWAYS IGNORE ANY LAWS DRAFTED THAT INDICATE THEIR WILL TO STRIP US OF THOSE RIGHTS! We are NOT their property, they are OUR PROPERTY BY RIGHT AND TITLE! THEY WORK FOR US, we do NOT WORK FOR THEM! NO court has the final say in how OUR rights are used, carried out or acted upon by the people. These LAWS are ONLY for the people, and UNTOUCHABlE BY ANY GOVERNMENT! If these elected officials think they can simply come in and take what they want, they will be DEAD WRONG! WE WILL NEVER GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT, BUT WE SHALL ALL STAND UNITED AGAINST THE TYRANNY KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNEMENT! Once the gallows are filled with the bodies of the enemies, the bells of freedom shall ring loudly again, proclaiming FREEDOM ACROSS THE LAND FOR ALL! A clear WARNING TO ANY INTENT ON DESECRATION OF OUR RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTION SHALL BE WARNED ONCE FOR MORE THAN THIS SHALL SHOW DESIRE TO PERFORM EVIL ACTS UPON THE FREEDOM LOVING PATRIOTS OF THE UNITED STATES! Acts that circumvent and destroy the rights of the people shall be met with a VIOLENT FORCE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WE FOUGHT AND DIED TO SECURE!

            DO NOT TREAD IN US…..EVER!!
            Stay alive and STAY AWAY FROM US! WE WILL NOT GIVE UP AND WILL NEVER BEND TO ILLEGAL ACTS!

        • Mary

          Isn’t it funny, how anyone who does not agree with some of these folks who think gun ownership means “any gun” are labeled Liberal Progressives. That is so Rush Limbaugh type speak.

          • Vicki

            Mary says:
            “Isn’t it funny, how anyone who does not agree with some of these folks who think gun ownership means “any gun” are labeled Liberal Progressives.”

            Well they sure aren’t Constitutionalists.

          • Jeff

            So what are the limits of the 2nd Amendment or do you think there are any? I’ve heard your hero Scalia say “arms” implies something you can carry, but certainly it can be argued that in a military sense, “arms” can include everything from an M-16 to a cannon to a drone to an A-bomb. Are you being punished if you can’t have your own A-bomb? How about a personal drone (You could paint it pink.)?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            The “limits” are what a military person would be using in a war. The reason for that is those in government want power. That is their “lifeblood”. The framers knew hamnity is not perfect, and that there will always be “wolves” amongst the “sheep”. So they wnted “sheepdogs”, all able-bodied people between the ages of 18 – 45 to keep the “wolves” from the “sheep”; those willing to train and arm themselves to protect their neighbors, their towns, cities, states, and when needed, their country.

            Bet you didn’t realize that a “standing military” is illegal here. That is because when they spend so much time being taught to follow orders, and little time – if any – spent on that they are NOT to follow illegal orders – that they would be held responsible for doing so. That is so that a thing like the “military industrial complex” would not come into being and take most of the money, have their OWN agenda – which is perpetual war.

            Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? … A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men.”

            ”The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Thomas Jefferson

            Hamilton: “When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning”. <– See, they knew it would come because power hunger is a "human" condition

            "All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
            My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
            Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten." Judge Alex Kozinski

            "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

            "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

            "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment

            "the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone," James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights <— He would know!

            "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed…" Noah Webster

            "…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…" Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies

            "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, ARE THE BIRTHRIGHT OF AN AMERICAN… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" Tench Coxe <– caps are mine

            "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." William Rawle

            "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." George Mason

            "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State

            ”For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." Bliss vs. Commonwealth

            "`The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." Nunn vs. State

            ”We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution” Abe Lincoln Obama, think not, read th oepning statement of the Nuremberg Trials – it will open your eyes.

            ”It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed… We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice”. Ramsey Clark, demanding that US leaders be held accountable for the deaths of Iraqi citizens

            ”Why of course the people don’t want war.
            Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
            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 Wilhelm Göring, during his trial in Nuremberg

            ”The catch-all phrase “the war on terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against “criminal gangsterism”. Terrorism is a tactic. You can’t have a war against a tactic. It’s deliberately vague and non-definable in order to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere and under any circumstance”. Ron Paul

            ”I’ve come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.
            For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 – long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else’s pride, they called me a racist.
            I’ve worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
            I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, WHEN i DREW AN ANALOGY BETWEEN SINGLING OUT INNOCENT JEWS AND SINGLING OUT INNOCENT GUN OWNERS, I was called an anti-Semite. (sound familiar? They always give a group that other can point to that is the ’cause” of the troubles)
            Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh. From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they’re essentially saying, “Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!” Charlton Heston

          • Jeff

            I know that one can interpret the 2nd Amendment this way. The question is whether it is reasonable to do so. Do you really want anyone to be able to destroy a city? Do you think that a document written circa 1790 can reasonably be interpreted the same way in the 21st Century? I know your answer, and I don’t think very many people will agree with you.

          • Financially Insecure John

            ““Isn’t it funny, how anyone who does not agree with some of these folks who think gun ownership means “any gun” are labeled Liberal Progressives.”

            -Well they sure aren’t Constitutionalists.-

            Like you’re a Constitutionalist? Yawwwwwwwn.

        • Vicki

          Jeff writes:
          “What laws do we have that prevent people from owning guns?”

          NFA 1934, GCA 1968, Brady Bill. And a host of state laws including California.

          • Jeff

            The Brady Bill hasn’t prevented us from having 300 million guns in circulation. And look at the arsenal Adam Lanza’s mother was able to legally acquire in a state with relatively strict gun laws. Clearly, even those laws prevent very little.

          • JeffH

            Get a clue Jeff. Nancy Lanza did not have an “arsenal of guns”, not even close, but if it makes you feel better keep repeating it.

            Nancy Lanza repotedly had five guns registered to her name.

            arsenal, ar·se·nal[ahr-suh-nl, ahrs-nuh l]

            noun
            1. a place of storage or a magazine containing arms and military equipment for land or naval service.

            2. a government establishment where military equipment or munitions are manufactured.

            3. a collection or supply of weapons or munitions.

          • JC

            Oh come on JeffH…if according to Jeff the LibCom…Nancy Lanza had an arsenal…it must have been an arsenal of HIGH POWERED GEORGE ASSAULT RIFLES WITH HIGH CAPACITY CLIPS…..OR MAGS….OR SOMETHING !!!!!

            Yeah Jeff the LibCom is nothing if not a purveyor of Hysteria….

      • Scott Anderson

        You’re missing something…. Back in 1775, “well regulated militia”. Didn’t mean what today’s politicians tell you… It simply ment ” a well armed citizenry”.

        • Jeff

          You have evidence to back that up? Because I think “well regulated” has a very different meaning from well armed. In fact, the word “regulate” is used elsewhere in the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights but in the Commerce Clause giving Congress the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. I think “regulate” meant about the same thing then as now.

      • Patriot 100%

        O.K. Jeff, if the 2nd Amendment does not mean what it says–what does it mean? Does it mean that you can not protect yourself from physcotic & criminal elements and that you are suppose to take a beating and let your wife and kids be molested? If that is your stance then that is why I am armed–so– be forewarned.

      • DaveH

        Here’s more for the readers who are foolish enough to believe the illogical and fact-bereft arguments of the Liberal Progressives.

        The murder rates in State Prisons, the most restrictive and controlled environments in the world, averaged 4 per 100,000 inmates in the year 2002:
        http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf

        Compare that to Utah, ranked 50th by the Brady Campaign for the LEAST gun-control in the United States, which had a murder rate of 2 per 100,000 people in the year 2002.

        Clearly Jeff and his Liberal Progressive cohorts don’t have a clue about what makes you the safest.

      • DaveH

        Crime rates for Utah from 1960 to 2011:
        http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/utcrime.htm

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Jeff, You are welcome to leave any time you’d like. You obviously are ignorant, of why the 2nd amendment was put it the bill of rights, and you have not read any of the writings of the founding fathers. It is two separate and not connected parts, if you knew anything about the language you would understand it. If you want to change the 2nd Amendment, there is only one way and that is by another amendment. Good luck with that. Just getting enough judges to say it needs to be re-interpreted will not work We will not give up our rights without a serious battle, using those arms if necessary.

      • JeffH

        Jeff,
        The Second Amendment: The Framers’ Intentions
        http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

      • JeffH

        Jeff,
        Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
        http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

        • Jeff

          There are other interpretations.

          http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm

          The framers certainly understood the concept of “regulation” in much the way we do today. It is used in the Commerce Clause to give Congress the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. The question is whether the reference to “the people” is collective (as in the 1st amendment’s right of free assembly) or more individual (as in the 4th amendment).

          Even if the Amendment grants a personal right as the Supreme Court has recently held, it is not an absolute right. There is still a rule of reasonableness in construing any Constitutional right. I don’t think anyone desires that all political disputes should henceforth be decided by which side can accumulate the most guns. I think some of the “tyranny” talk on these blogs mitigates in that direction.

      • JeffH

        Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

        You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

      • GALT

        The “terms” …..well regulated and/or disciplined when coupled with the
        term “militia”…….has no valid significance…….historically.

        While phrasing might have been “politically correct” for its day, it was more wishful
        thinking than anything even resembling a reasonable expectation, even under the
        best of circumstances………and that these were “state militia’s” further diminishes
        any expectations. ( see The Patriot )

        A more modern analogy would be the expected reliability of regular Army vs. that
        of the Reserve or National Guard. The latter receive basic and advanced individual
        training and then return home, for continued training of one weekend a month, and
        two weeks a year unless activated for combat.

        At one point, during the draft, there was a crossover requirement, of two years
        active reserve duty, for draftees, so it was possible that Reserves might have
        “combat experienced” troops within them…….but this situation no longer
        exists, since the force is all volunteer and enlistments are full term.

        I do not know if the military has taken any steps to alter this, or did alter it
        when they activated reserve and guard units for service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

        There was a period during the Vietnam conflict, when companies having completed
        the AIT sequence were shipped intact, directly into combat, which proved to
        be a really bad idea, so much so, that they stopped doing it……hopefully
        someone remembered that…….in the lull between wars?

      • JC

        The Second Amendment is really little more than “window dressing” to satisfy
        one of the Virginia signers. The real “meat” is in Article 1, Section 8
        listing powers/responsibilities of Congress.

        Among them are:
        “To provide and maintain a Navy” but only
        “To raise and support Armies” and “To provide for
        calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
        Insurrections and repel Invasions;” also “To provide for organizing, arming,
        and disciplining, the Militia-” and the Militia of the United States, by
        Law, consists of every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and
        45.

        In short, we are to have a defense similar to that of the Swiss, who
        have never been invaded by a foreign power. Meaning that We The People
        ARE the Militia and should be suitably armed to be so.

      • GALT

        JeffH???? If they can be given up and they can be taken away, how are
        they “unalienable”?

        If they are “unsecured” how are they anything at all, since the source of
        that security is the government, and the document you reference is one
        giving notice to a government of its failure to secure them thereby
        dissolving the “bonds”? July 4, 1776

        Articles of Confederation……adopted by Congress November 15, 1777

        How does one claim understanding of the meaning of the whole, when the
        meaning of the parts are either undefined or false, while dependent on
        an existing entity which has failed, while in the midst of transference to
        another theoretical entity, whose basis for authority is one reliant on
        a condition which has never existed?

        Clearly, one may be moved by the inspirational impetus of the moment,
        and put off grappling with the overall implications of the parts, but at
        some point one is forced to consider their assembly into a reasoned
        structure which at least attempts to produce the implied result?

        Of course the need to question this, will never occur to those, who
        know the meaning of words which have no meaning, even when
        the structure devised to impliment them has failed? ( both in
        it’s original form and it’s evolved one.)

        One can choose to blame the structure or it’s evolution or corruption,
        but this hasn’t seemed to have produced any useful results, so far.

        Or maybe, we could use the experience of history, to determine what
        the right to life, secured by a government whose just powers are
        derived from the consent of the governed, really means?

      • Kate8

        GALT – I believe that JeffH is demonstrating the difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable”.

        “Inalienable” rights can be sold or transferred. “Unalienable” rights cannot.

        http://www.gemworld.com/usa-unalienable.htm

      • Lyndia

        Jeff,

        When the Declaration/Bill of Rights were written in the early days of this country. Those who wrote these documents would not even have begun to imagine the advancements of all aspects of the lives of the Amercan people and the country itself yet; the wise words they wrote within them has weathered the time and are the basis of the very conscience and strength of this great country. The Amercan People have always known of their 2nd Amendment Rights through the years and 99% of them have never abused those rights yet, it takes only that 1% to give the governmnet the push to remove that Amendment Rights and give themselves supreme control over the Citizens of this country!! The authors of the Constitution/Bill of Rights put that amendment in BECAUSE OF THESE KIND OF POWER HUNGRY POLITICAL PEOPLE THAT THEY LEFT THEIR OWN COUNTRIES TO REBUILD IN A NEW COUNTRY….THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!
        We suddenly have a basic stranger in control of this country and we are being threatened with the restructuring of the very foundation of our country!! Did anyone ever think about refusing to allow planes to fly in American airspace when actual terrorists killed 3,000 of our people in the Twin Towers or refuse to allow foreigners into our country because it was a few foreigners who flew those planes?? Does the government take vehicles away from the citizens of this country because of the thousands of men, women, and children who are killed by irresponsible/careless drivers each year??? I am truly sorry for those families who have lost family members to senseless killings, but to punish innocent people for those tragedies is also senseless and irresponsible of those who believe foolishly, that that will help reduce the tragedies!. I have had three of my siblings killed..one with a gun and they are still vividly in my mind, but I wouldn’t punish innocent people and I know my 2 bothers & my sister wouldn’t like me very much if I did!!

      • GALT

        Yes, Kate I understand that, but my questions are with regard to unalienable,
        and as they were quoted in the declaration……there is no argument, regarding
        their being “granted” by government or that “government” ( in this instance) has accepted
        the duty of securing them.

        The problem is there is no validity to the assertion that they exist at all,
        since they are easily removed and have been…….which is why the final question
        is phrased in the particular order of the elements to be considered.

        The are several words in the declaration which are invalid and false, and
        therefore irrelevant…….they have been omitted from the final question,
        because they have no bearing on the answer……the conditions remain
        the same, and are further simplified by the consideration of a single unsecured
        right, that of life itself………and what any government would have to consider
        to properly secure this right, which it has accepted as its stated purpose.

      • JC

        Jeff says:
        January 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
        Dave, you read only the most right wing dreck available and you assume you’re always right about everything. You love to personally insult anyone with the temerity to disagree with you and your right wing sources.
        ___________________________________________________________________

        Jeff your use of the term “right wing” is not just obnoxious, it’s boring.
        DaveH is a very well informed Libertarian…WAY up the evolutionary ladder
        from you my goose stepping little friend.

        And Libertarians are adherents of the Constitution. So! Are you saying that adherents of the Constitution are “right wing”?
        It so, it puts you in perspective alright…so far left you’ve “left” the planet.

      • sam1966

        Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy, how many times do we have to tell you what the militia is? The militia are all men from 18 – 60 years old, in good physical and mental condition, own a firearm, and can fight. The militia is to fight alongside the army in times our country is attacked. But alas! This would mean that you couldn’t perform your patriotic duties. Also, what is this crap about different interpretations of the Constitution? If a person has a different interpretation of the Constitution, other than the way it was written, shows that they are warping the meaning of the Constitution to fit their own ideals and beliefs. Since you are one of those, you are unamerican. Here is something showing how Obama bin Laden wants to track arms sales and other things:

        http://www.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/14/barack-obama-on-gun-control-executive-order-more-gun-tracking-n1488923

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves Jeffy out.

        “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion (CHRISTIANITY) and morality are indispenable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these finest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

        George Washington
        Farewell Address 1796

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Excellent comment!

          To clarify “militia”. ALL able-bodied citizens and those LEGALLY allowed to be here …”
          Not just men. :)

      • GALT

        Well, sammy, sammy, sammy…….

        but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.

        It does not appear that ownership of a firearm is required, but you probably
        missed this little detail above……..who is “we” by the way……you wouldn’t be
        suggesting that “democracy” is being employed to substantiate an interpretation
        that is “obviously” false……or the “intent” and the question regarding it that
        Jeff has already conceded…….sammy, sammy, sammy?

      • JC

        GALT says:

        January 15, 2013 at 6:29 am

        Well, sammy, sammy, sammy…….

        but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.
        ______________________________________________________________________

        Source?

      • JC

        JC says:

        January 14, 2013 at 3:39 pm

        The Second Amendment is really little more than “window dressing” to satisfy
        one of the Virginia signers. The real “meat” is in Article 1, Section 8
        listing powers/responsibilities of Congress.

        Among them are:
        “To provide and maintain a Navy” but only
        “To raise and support Armies” and “To provide for
        calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
        Insurrections and repel Invasions;” also “To provide for organizing, arming,
        and disciplining, the Militia-” and the Militia of the United States, by
        Law, consists of every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and
        45.
        ______________________________________________________________________

        Source Indicated as Article 1, Section 8.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          This is more at Bob: “Why didn’t they say “To insure that the Government never overreaches in the governing of its citizens…”

          Have you read the Preamble to the Bill of rights? It says it in the Preamble- CAPS ARE MINE.:

          Congress of the United States
          begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
          THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
          RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
          ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

          Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

      • sam1966

        Well said and thanks for the support Kansas Bright. Galt, why worry about money and logistics? The militia would probably bring arms, ammo, sundries, etc., with them, so why the concern about money and logistics? Uniforms and helmets, yes, but everything else, no. Galt is no patriot, but a coward and traitor. Here is something from Senator Rand Paul on Obama bin Laden:

        http://www.conservativevideos.com/2013/01/rand-paul-on-gun-control-executive-order-obama-is-not-king/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both ;love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves Galt and Jeffy out.

        “A patriot must be a religious man.”

        Thomas Jefferson

        • Jeff

          Are your students’ parents aware of what a crappy education their kids are getting? They might just as well watch Glenn Beck every day as sit in your class. Less chance of one of your guns killing them.

      • sam1966

        Nice personal attack from a 5th columner. I see you trolled, then came Galt, then you again. Are you the same person just changing names? Here is something that prooves Obama bin Laden to be a hypocrite:

        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/Backfire-Obamacare-Forbids-Gun-and-Ammo-Registration

        Sheesh! The COOTUS can’t even go by some legislation that was forced onto the people of this great country. I’ll still be keeping my firearm at arms length and keeping some powder dry. This is what a real patriot would do Jeff. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out Jeff.

        “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too oftenthat this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason people of other faiths have been afforded assylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

        Patrick Henry
        March 23, 1775

        • Jeff

          WGWJU: Which gun would Jesus use?

      • GALT

        Source…..You missed it the first time JC?

        Article VI, Articles of Confederation

        You will the the entire section in the post regarding interpretation…

        You might also want to consider the following, for all the people who
        write about the “intent” of the framers……..most of these claims, can be
        supported by using the Articles of Confederation.

        As the first form of enacted government, this source would trump any other
        regarding intent in terms of the weight of legal precedent, because much of
        what is there was simply included in the Constitution…….so changes and
        alterations are significant, as is the structure of government….

        Yet for all the opinion that is offered, it might as well be as if this document
        never existed……..

        Of course since 1938 you have a Constitution that might has well
        have never existed, and you’re still babbling about the intent of the
        elite white property owners, some of whom were slave owners.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          This is more at jeff, “Why didn’t they say “To insure that the Government never overreaches in the governing of its citizens”

          They did, have you never read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights? If not, here:
          Preamble to the Bill of Rights

          Congress of the United States
          begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
          THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
          RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
          ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

          Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

          Here are the Amendments:
          Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          Amendment II: 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.

          Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

          Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

          Amendment VII: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

          Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

          Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          Art IV Sec 2, the 14th says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

      • daleh

        Jeff,

        your referral about the Sheriff making people take off their guns out West when in town , is just alot of Hollywood fantasy–it was good for the movie thats all –

        I agree with Bob and his letter to the Congress –they gave up representing us long ago

    • FreedomFighter

      A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT…….December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

      We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

      Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

      Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

      As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.

      Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
      Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

      Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

      Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families. Jeffrey E.

      I am an American Indian, learn from us what will happen with registration and confiscation

      When Tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • TIME

        Dear FF,

        Great points, everyone should review: Russel Means ~ Video’s on Youtube for a perspective that really hits home. The one that all of you should watch today as in right now: Welcome to the Reservation

        Russel Means was a True Great American – HERO let alone a TRUE MAN amoung all MEN.
        Thus all of you should know his name as well understand what he stood for.
        “FREEDOM.”

        Peace and Love, Shalom

      • FreedomFighter

        here is the link

        Welcome To The Reservation
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-2FIIQu5GU

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Old Henry

        “Any one who thinks he can be happy
        and prosperous by letting
        the Government take care of him,
        better take a closer look at the American Indian.”

      • http://none nick beck

        THANKS for your letter—–you nailed it

      • DaveH

        FreedomFighter,
        The colonists quite regularly tricked the Indians into giving up their weapons and afterwards took severe advantage of them. It’s an old, old trick by unscrupulous Leaders.
        Read this to learn the real story of our development since the 16th century:
        http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Conceived%20in%20Liberty_Vol_2.pdf

      • CZ52

        “… and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept.”

        No it was not. While it was not conducted in the same manner it is today target shooting, often held as shooting contests, was done rather frequently. It commonly took the form of the “turkey shoot”.

      • Bob W.

        jeff, It is the PEOPLE who have rights, given to them by God, not the government. The States at the time of the passing of the Constitution had only the citizens to draw a militia from as there was no federal army and no National Guard. That is why the 1st phrase was included in the second amendment. The whole intent of the “Bill of Rights”, ie. 1st 10 amendments, was to constrain the federal government from trampling on those God given rights. Conclusion: all rights other than those mentiones expressly reserving power to the states were personal rights which were to be protected form intrusion by the Federal government.

      • redhawk

        Hau Kola, FreedomFighter,

        Very true words but let’s also remembert Russel Means book,
        “Where Whitemen Fear to Tread”

        http://www.amazon.com/Where-White-Fear-Tread-Autobiography/dp/0312147619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358183591&sr=8-1&keywords=Where+Whitemen+Fear+to+TRead

        If any of you have ever been to Pine Ridge or even looked at pictures taken over the years, the “benevolence” of the the U.S. government will be obvious. Give up my guns or even have THAT government tell me what I or can’t have, Oh, hell NO!

        Also, read about chief Black Kettle. Given a medal of friendship while visiting Washington and told to fly an American flag over his lodge so all would know his allegiance to the US. He was a leader of the Southern Cheyenne after 1854, who led efforts to resist American settlement from Kansas and Colorado territories. He was a peacemaker who accepted treaties to protect his people. He survived the Third Colorado Cavalry’s Sand Creek Massacre on the Cheyenne reservation in 1864. He and his wife were among those killed in 1868 at the Battle of Washita River, in a US Army attack on their camp by George Armstrong Custer. Notice they attacked WHILE ON THE RESERVATION proper. Most warriors were away hunting so 168 old men, women & children were shot, beaten & stabbed to death because they could not defend themselves. Souvenirs (scalps, fingers, ears. genitals, ….) were displaded for years. When the attack came he also put a white flag up along with the American flag, all to no avail. Later on he said,

        “Although wrongs have been done me, I live in hopes. I have not got two hearts…. I once thought that I was the only man that persevered to be the friend of the white man, but since they have come and cleaned out our lodges, horses, and everything else, it is hard for me to believe white men any more.” I urge you to to put “POLITICIAN” in place of whitemen for it is not so much race that divides us these days but GREED. This is a scenario that happened time and again to people who only wanted to be left along. For those “progressives” out there, do NOT dare tell me it can’t happen here! It already has!

        Hook-a-hey!

      • DaveH

        It is typically not the common people who engage in atrocities, but rather the psychopaths who have floated to the top and became Leaders. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely:
        http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/beware-the-psychopath-my-son/

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Ditto, one quarter Cherokee here.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        FreedomFighter I agree with all you said, and your words are truth. I as a former jarhead believe in “Live Free or Die” I won’t be a slave on the marxist plantation lead by marxist leftest and RINO’s who forgot it is “We the People” and not We the marxist controller’s. Hitler did it because he disarmed the people killed the elderly and lame and Hitler lives again in the person of obozo-in-chief. Listened to about 5 minutes of his lies and then had to go puke, he only lies when his lips are moving and he can’t stop talking about himself and how great he is. His pride says he wants to be a dictator but I’m hoping the freedom lovers will stand up to him and his gang of thugs. God Bless and Semper Fi:

      • Wolfman

        also the murders of all those Waco Texas kids by Janet Reno and the ATF

      • CZ52

        “It is typically not the common people who engage in atrocities,”

        Not entirely true. However, when the common people do engage in atrocities it is almost always with the encouragement, guidance, instigation, etc of the leaders.

      • Vin Price

        “Scott Anderson says:
        January 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm

        You’re missing something…. Back in 1775, “well regulated militia”. Didn’t mean what today’s politicians tell you… It simply ment ” a well armed citizenry”

        I can’t prove this but one version of the ‘well regulated militia’ comes from prerevolution Georgia where the Governor was using the militia as a bully force. The people (no citizens yet, notice) organized the “regulators” to control the behavior of the militia. May be fantasy, I don’t know, but, it certainly fits.

      • sam1966

        Great post Freedom Fighter, fellow patriot. I see that many patriots are out in force on this subject. As the saying goes, “Speaks well that men are willing to come together to fight and die, because they feel right is on their side. Speaks well.”, though no one has died or are in danger of doing so, but it does speak well that people can come together and stand up for their God-given rights. I see that Jeff is trying to mess things up, as usual. I guess that Jeffy just don’t get it. But then again, he believes in what he is told by the godless libturds. Here is something showing that Obama bin Laden will give help to Sandy victims, but they need to turn in their guns:

        http://www.patriotupdate.com/articles/gun-control-and-sandy-crooks-2/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

        “You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”

        George Washington

      • Jacobite

        Many points. The 7th Cavalry was part of our government, not the Indians’. They, of course, are members of soveriegn Indian Nations. The root of ‘patriot’ is ‘Pater’ or father. Patriots (or compatriots) are people having the same father, or at least belonging to the same extended family. No one feels patriotism for any country — patriotism is the loyaty shown to family members. The Nation is the furthest extension of the biological family possible (this is why we speak of the Nation-State, where one people live in one country). This accords with basic biology. Any animal society is composed of related individuals (actually DNA related, not kumbaya BS), competing for conventional goals via conventional means. The conventional goals and means are the accepted religion, language, mores, customs, culture, etc. maintaining and defining every human society. That’s why Leftists are constantly attacking all these things, because by weakening them, they eventually destroy the society. Think ACLU here. There are two life-or-death issues facing Americans today. First, gun confiscation — Leftists want you defenseless. Second, immigration. As stated, the only members of any society are those related to other society members. Unrelated individuals will be members of their own, different, and competing, societies. The reason Congress appears less and less interested in what Americans think is that they are getting close to being able to get re-elected without majority support from Americans. The more Amerinds they import from Latin America every year, the fewer American votes they will need. Make no mistake, only NW Europeans were, are, or can be ‘Americans’ in any societal sense.

        • Bob666

          “Make no mistake, only NW Europeans were, are, or can be ‘Americans’ in any societal sense.”

          Perhaps you could elaberate a bit more on that statement.

        • Frank Kahn

          There are several problems with your post. Pater means Father and is the root for patriot or compatriot. However, the usage of patriotic in reference to a country is valid in the sense that we are a family. As a family, the Nation / Constitution is the Father / Mother figure. Matriot just doesnt sound right. Patriot is, and has been used to denote support of a nation for hundreds of years, your attempt to nullify it is invalid. Heck, the Germans even called Germany the Father land.

          Now to some silly remarks you made.

          You said: “The reason Congress appears less and less interested in what Americans think is that they are getting close to being able to get re-elected without majority support from Americans. The more Amerinds they import from Latin America every year, the fewer American votes they will need. Make no mistake, only NW Europeans were, are, or can be ‘Americans’ in any societal sense.”

          Point 1 – Your use of the word Americans is wrong. Canadians, Mexicans, Chileans, Brazilians are all Americans.

          Point 2 – Europeans are not Americans.

          Point 3 – Amerinds? From Latin America? First you say they are not Americans, then you say they are from Latin America? You seem to be calling them American Indians, but they are not Americans? Does that make the Native Americans (Amerinds), living in the U.S., not Americans also?

          Point 4 – Since you claim that only Europeans are true Americans, does that mean that African Americans are not Americans? How about Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Russian and Australian descendants, are they not true Americans?

          I hate to play the race card, and usually dont. However, your statement seems to support what I have heard called here as the Old White European superiority theory. Only White European descendants are valid Americans?

    • Old Henry
      • rocketride

        It’s ALWAYS for dummies!

    • ALL AMERICAN

      My decision is not based on others’ interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
      The 2nd Amendment is spelled out, and if you try to twist it otherwise, you are brain dead.
      My and others’ decision remians the same…
      I will not give up nor register my guns…
      My guns are not just for hunting or protection against criminals, but mainly for protection from a tyrannical government.
      All you sheep feel free to give yours up, I have no problem with that.
      As a law abiding citizen who has served and realizes the meaning and value of OUR Constitution, the Freedom it gives, endowed by GOD, I WILL PROTECT IT AND MY COUNTRY AT ALL COSTS.
      AMEN.

      • JC

        Amen That!

      • sam1966

        AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Here is an article showing a patrtiot standing up for our rights:

        http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/co-sheriff-i-will-protect-constitutional-rights-with-my-dying-breath/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

        “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

        Patrick Henry

    • longbowelk

      I agree, John Cornyn always gives me the Standard Mealy mouthed reply that says nothing. As far as I am concerned if I don’t get an answer that is “hell bent for leather” on the side of liberty and our constitutional and God given rights he is on Team Obamunist.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Oath breaking is a criminal act. Since the oath is a REQUIREMENT of the position; they are no longer meeting the requirements of the position/office they occupy if they break it.
      That means that they can be replaced immediately upon breaking or voting for anything that is against the US Constitution,, and or, state constitutions when that applies.

      Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

      The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

      The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

      Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      The Framers placed the presidential Oath after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

      The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

      They are bound by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure. (Political Remedy for a criminal offense)

      Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

      Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
      .
      Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

      Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

      Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

      Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

      Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

      5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

      5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

      5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

      18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

      The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

      Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. According to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      Preamble to the Bill of Rights
      Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
      RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
      ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
      Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

      The Preamble shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, which were adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

      Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Art IV Sec 2, the 14th says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

      Treason:
      Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

      Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

      18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

      Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or

      Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
      Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

      Those that are aiding and abetting the UN taking authority over the USA (Obama, Panetta, Dempsey) is treason. Those who covered it up and did nothing about it (Boehner – Obama’s treasonous letter; the Senate members that were there for Panetta and Dempsey).
      For those of you fighting UN”s Agenda 21 is treason.

      What we need to do is start cleaning house starting with all who are not keeping the legally binding oath required of them, move to congress and the senate, etc – arrests, prosecutions, replacing them.

      • daleh

        KB,

        The Title 18, US Code, Section2381, Treason , should apply to the Senator John Kerry , he met with the enemy in Paris in the ’70′s while still a Naval officer–he had no legal standing asa negotiator that I know of –if that is claimed why would the Nixon/KKissenger , leave that to a junior Naval officer??–now he is to be appointed Sec of State —he should never have been allowed to serve in any public offcie according to the US Code–

    • Matrix

      Bob
      Thank you so much for your intelligent view and your poetry with words of truth!

      If you look back at the day of this tragedy, it was I who first brought up the fact that the shooting was a false flag to take away the guns of honest American’s, but the deeper I dig into this horror, the sicker it becomes.

      As you have stated above

      “These are people who have already shown a willingness to die in order to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

      I pray to God that you enter into any gun control negotiations prayerfully and with a full understanding of the mood of the country. You have been warned.”

      This is what our current administration is counting on, where our own military is considered traitors, police and true patriots that defend our God given rights will be demonized as terrorist, and this is already happening!

      Once we begin fighting against the insanity, then the corruptors in power will bring every evil force to bring us to our knees, but we “have already shown a willingness to die” for FREEDOM, and to those souls who have given of themselves before us in the name of Freedom!

      We are in the middle game of the destruction of America, the fraudulent re-election of Obama was the loss of our Queen in an already down game, but as American’s we will stand and conquer any threat to our FREEDOM!

      I pray to God for his help against the evil that has corrupted our government and the wisdom and power to fight it!

      God Bless America, and those who fight for her!!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        There are many in the US military who are standing for the US Constitution. Why else do you think Obama, Dempsey, and Panetta hired so many mercenaries (at a greater cost) and brought them here, and the illegal “treaties” for foreign military to be brought here if needed to quell an “uprising” against the domestic enemies and treasonous representatives.

        They do NOT trust that our US Military will do as ordered, but do as their Oath, and coutnry, requires.

        Many have “suicided” (been murdered – military and law enforcement), been remanded to psychiatric facilities (very Hitler of them, to get them out of the way and ‘reprogram’ them into the correct way of thinking), or sent to foreign lands so that they cannot be here to defend Americans on their home soil should that effort be needed.

        Many of law enforcement, specifically sheriffs, are standing up for their communities and actively pushing for legislation against NDAA, Patriot Act, etc. Check out Constitutional Sheriffs police. Cannot remember the acronym for their site.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8GKAyuogGS4

        http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/01/14/video-oath-keeper-officer-calls-on-brother-cops-to-refuse-to-enforce-gun-bans-or-registration/

    • http://NONE Rob

      Well Said Mr. Livingston! May I use exerpts of this in writing to my elected Officials?

    • Mark Matis

      If only this could be hammered into the brains of this country’s “Law Enforcement” officers. Every one of them has sworn a very similar oath to the Constitution. Every one of them is armed. Every one of them is charged to arrest criminals. This country’s “leadership”, at ALL levels, have blatantly committed treason to THEIR very oaths of office, as outlined above at the Federal level. Yet NOT ONE “Law Enforcement” officer will see fit to honor that oath, even though it is the ONLY source of their authority. Hell, even if they WON’T arrest the traitors in this country’s “leadership”, how long do you think those “leaders” would last should “Law Enforcement” merely stand aside and say “No, we WON’T protect you from the Mere Citizens, for you have committed treason”? Yet instead, they play Praetorian Guard in the worst sense of the term.

      The stench is overwhelming.

    • ALL AMERICAN

      With a tactical hammer ? lol
      Still prob would not work… as their brains are mush.

    • ALL AMERICAN

      With a Tactical Hammer?
      Don’t think it would help, as their brains are already mush.

    • Micheal

      I think we should anyway!

    • Micheal

      I think we should try anyway!

      • Micheal

        Sorry about doubling down on my post, but I came back after a couple of hours to check for more comments, and my first comment was gone. So, I re-posted and, wouldn’t you know it, both of them popped up! Good grief Charlie Brown.

  • Vicki

    Bob Livingston writes:
    “If I’m not mistaken, these unConstitutional laws contain provisions that in some way violate Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. That’s quite a feat for two laws.”

    I believe you are correct. I would go farther and say that JUST the part of the NDAA that gives the President authority to make people disappear violates ALL of the Bill of Rights except for Numbers 3 &7 and violates the WHOLE reason that governments are instituted. (see Declaration of Independence for that list.)

    Amendment 1.
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    NDAA 2012 violates freedom of speech, Freedom of the press (like posting here), freedom peaceably to assemble Can’t go to peaceful demonstrations such as the tea party demonstrations or the peaceful OWS demonstrations, can’t submit petitions to the government.
    ————————————————————————————————————

    Amendment 2
    “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.”

    NDAA 2012 violates 2 by keeping the person from owning and carrying any firearm even though they have not been charged with let alone convicted of any crimes.
    ————————————————————————————————————

    Amendment 4
    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Prima Facie violation of 4
    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Amendment 5

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Prima Facie violation of 5
    ————————————————————————————————————–

    Amendment 6

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

    Absent a criminal complaint there is nowhere in the Constitution that Congress nor the President has the power to indefinitely detain anyone.

    Certainly no evidence that there is going to be a speedy trial let alone a public one.
    ————————————————————————————————————–

    Amendment 8
    “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

    NDAA 2012 violates 8 by not allowing bail and by applying cruel AND unusual punishment for innocent persons.
    ————————————————————————————————————–

    Amendment 9
    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    NDAA 2012 violates 9 by depriving the innocent citizen of a lot of rights not enumerated in the Bill of rights.
    ————————————————————————————————————–

    Amendment 10
    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Since the Constitution never delegated the power to the United States nor to any level of government) to indefinitely detain any citizen the NDAA 2012 violates 10
    —————————————————————————————————————

    Amendment 13
    “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

    NDAA violates 13 by detaining (caging) a citizen who has not been duly convicted.
    —————————————————————————————————————

    Pretty busy little law.

    • GALT

      When you can make entire “jurisdictions” disappear, what’s a right or
      two, or a few person here, or a person there?

      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

      “Damn, where DID we put those ( common ) “law and equity” courts”?

      • Charlie

        GALT,,,
        The Common Law courts were gone when the state god failed to provide a jury of “Peers”… Howard Freeman did not fix that problem , and, you are not going to fix that problem, because, you don’t know what Common Law is…
        SO.? We will tell you , common law is that law that is common to all mankind ,AND,,,was FIRST , in “Time”… NOW??? guess what book is the ONLY Book that contains The Common Law , being first in time, first in law,????…………………. How about taking a look at Psalm 19:7 where God calls His Law perfect, then , take a look at James 4:12 to figure out Who The ONLY Law Giver is… Obama’s Executive orders or edicts is so much El toro dung coming from a teetotal heathen that is in violation of Deuteronomy 17:15,, and has NOT proven to be born in America ,,,so, he is in violation of The Common Law AND also The Constitution … The Federal Reserve Comptrollers and Jew Lawyers put Obama in office…
        NOW,,, GALT , come on back with a “FIX” for America’s problems (SINS),,, without The Law of The Almighty God and His Son , King Jesus Christ…. Meanwhile…………………………
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

    • DaveH

      Actually Vicki, the concept — “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” — is a bit rare and very hopeful.
      As Clifford says — “To say governments were formed to protect the rights of men would be historically incorrect. Almost all governments were formed by ruthless men exerting their will over others through the use of force. Some governments, over time, evolved toward the rule of law, perhaps only because their rulers saw that this would sanction their own continued enjoyment of the wealth that they possessed. In some instances, this evolution involved one or more “revolutions” in which those who were governed were able to better establish the rule of law”.
      http://mises.org/daily/3427

      • GALT

        Or to put it more bluntly, all governments and all economic systems, (which
        are dependent on government ) have ( historically ) FAILED!!!!! ( or are
        in the process of FAILING!!!!)

        What are we to make ( from a logically reasoned position ) of words, written under
        duress, seeking to rationalize “insurrection”, while attempting to disguise it as
        “something” different ( historically )”rather than”, what it has
        always been, historically? ( the replacement of one class of ( elite )
        rulers, for another! )

        Given the result of the experiment, after almost two and a half centuries,
        one is somewhat starkly confronted by the fact that, despite the “claim”
        of the differentiated source of the “legitimacy” regarding the POWER
        of GOVERNMENT……..that these words and their construction, were
        simply a matter of “convenience” and that even if one were to assign
        the most “noblest of intentions to them”………from a foundational frame
        of reference, the actual meaning of the words are as ephemeral today,
        as they were when they were written?

        History would seem to confirm this as being the simplest explanation.

        While it is quite possible to suggest that their might be another,
        the sheer number and complexity of the “conditions” required
        to support such an attempt……..would more than likely indicate
        the “self interest” of the claimant……..( or perceived self interest )
        rather than any actual evidence which would prompt one to
        grant it any serious claim to validity, or even warrant any
        consideration, at all! ( logically reasoned, of course….
        fantasy permits all possibilities. )

        Given the historical failure of EVERYTHING, might it
        not be more prudent to consider that “civilization”, which has
        produced the “history” we are in fact citing, has also failed?

        Or even simpler, that civilization was simply an “effect”, which was
        an improvement over what preceded it, and that “history”….real or
        imagined…….is simply natural law ( real ) operating in an
        “unnatural environment”?

        Rather than pondering, the failure of government to deliver any actual
        benefits……..might it not be time to consider what the benefits of
        civilization have been? After all, it has not something that WE have
        ever actually done!

        We simply skipped over it…….and we have simply adjusted ourselves
        to the FACT of the condition……..rationalizing our history to the results
        of it……..rather than viewing it as a result of the change of the nature
        of our condition, with out having changed the condition of our nature?

  • Warrior

    If the NRA would just pledge their allegiance (donations) to the democrats, this will all go away!

  • dan

    if it’s UN-Constitutional…it isn’t a law
    try to remember that we’re Americans,damn-it

    • JC

      “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.””

      Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    • Vicki

      It may not be a law but it is enforced as law by people WITH GUNS.

  • Elton

    I am one of which he speaks. I have lived a good long life in better times of this country. It is one great thing to change from tyrany to freedom, but going in the other direction I for one am not up for. If they come after my guns, of which I have few, there will be blood shed even if it is my own….

  • Dwight Mann

    How many people are jailed because of the “War on Drugs”.
    Just think of how many millions will be incarcerated because of the new “War on Guns”. . .

    • Dwight Mann

      Or worse yet, Killed. . .

    • Old Henry

      It’s all part of the plan, Dwight.

      The more they can put into prison, the bigger their slave labor source will become. Slavery was abolished? Take a close peek at the 14th.

      When, and if, they come after guns it will most likely fal upon your county sheriff’s department and we will be forced to “resist” what are essentially our neighbors.

      See my post below regarding that.

    • DaveH

      The jailing of drug offenders is one thing.
      The treatment of totally innocent people is quite another. It should become obvious from this map that the “authorities” aren’t really concerned with the well-being of the people:
      http://www.cato.org/raidmap

  • Mr Diesel

    Correction, we were Americans. Now we are just subjects, albeit well armed subjects but subjects just the same. No amount of letter writing will change that either. We are already too far down the road to change the outcome.

    • Hedgehog

      Mr. Diesel:
      You are in error! You are still an American! You are not a subject! In order to be a subject you have to swear allegiance/fealty to someone. Your allegiance is to the Constitution, which works by the CONSENT of the governed! I am a subject. I am a Canadian! I have sworn allegiance/fealty to Queen Elizabeth the II, her heirs and successors according to law! However, from the tone and wording of your comment, you have surrendered your status as a FREE man and meekly await your enslavement!

      “You cannot enslave a Free man, you can only kill him!” Another quote I am unable to attribute.

  • TIME

    Dear People,

    Please ~ look into { David Wynn Miller } Learn how and who has placed shackles on you, and why they did. > Just Google him < There is enough of his work to blow your damm mind wide open if you can "Comprehend" what he is telling you. In fact there is not a single person who will ever use the words; ~ " CONSPIRACY THEORY" ~ ever again, its just a fact.

    He has a one 6.5 Hour presentation that you will have to watch at least 2 times to get { just a few points.}
    Its broken down into 25 Minute bites, yet ~ I don't think any of you will be able to absord even one single 25 minute bite the first time around, its that intence.

    I have been saying what he is saying now for years, its all in the " WORDS ". on ~ ALL ~ Doucments that have been used to Enslave and Rob you blind.

    Peace and Love, Shalom

  • Robert E. Smith

    I am retired from the military, I swore an oath just like all others who served, to defend and protect against all foreign and domestic enemies, the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America. I meant every word of it and Bob Livingston has identified the domestic enemy and they are you. Be prepared to die just like the rest of us. For we will defend this precious document against the tyrannical ignoramuses in Washington and wherever else. .

    • FreedomFighter

      Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. We are the resistance

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

    • Old Henry

      Robert,

      A few months ago I watched an Alex Jones segment where a guy from OK called in. He stated he had been in the OK NG in 2005 and was sent to New Orleans with his unit. They were told to confiscate all guns and they began going door-to-door kicking them in. They were told to shoot to kill anyone resiting and he said they would have.

      Now, these several years later, he has matured and realizes what an attrocity that had been. However, that is now and his deeds are done.

      My first thought was Nuremberg.

      So, I am not convinced the kids, and they are kids, in the military will not “do as they are told”. Even to “top brass” followed the order of the treasonous foreign national communist Kenyan scum when he told them to stand down and essentially watch as four Americans were murdered. So, they will also “do as they are told”.

      You will be shooting your former comrades in arms.

      • Thomas Payne

        The Heart, Mind, and Spirit ARE prepared for what must be done.

  • Bill

    As soon as the progressives wake up, we will hear all of the reasons why we should have gun contol. There can be no compromise because their goals are to take away our guns, one piece art a time.

    No Compromise!!! The existing gun laws do not stop criminals, they only tie the hands of honest citizens.

    The progressives failed economic policies will continue to create more thugs that we need to protect ourselves from

    • JC

      That’s right Bill…. NO Compromise. None!

    • DaveH

      Yep. Experience proves that almost everything they claim to want to accomplish with their laws produces the opposite effect. Still they persist.
      That is because there are two classes of Progressives:
      Those who are the Leaders and who know their laws don’t work, but don’t care because their real goals are subjugation of the citizens and more Power and Perks for themselves.
      And Those who are the Followers, who are either purely brainwashed, or they perceive that some day they will reach Leadership and share in the spoils.

      • Bill

        Good analogy, DaveH

      • Jeff

        It must be nice for you to have this receptive audience to accept whatever drivel you decide to post. So no progressive initiatives have made a difference or have worked? Is that your thesis? It’s all a ruse to get control? Of what? Your MONEY?

        Let’s see. We’re not better off because food is inspected before it is sold. We’re not better off because we have safety standards for our workplaces (The Triangle Fire was perfectly OK.). Miners are not better off because mine owners are regulated. We’re not better off because of FDR’s bank regulations, the FDIC, etc. We’re not better off because of Social Security guaranteeing that people can retire with enough income to survive. We’re not better off because Black people in the south can vote, go to restaurants, gas stations, and bathrooms. We’re not better off because of Medicare (better for old people to just die). We’re not better off because of environmental protections (rivers are supposed to catch fire and we were born to cough). We’re not better off because women can be more than nurses and teachers.

        One can learn so much from you, Dave. Unfortunately, it’s all wrong. Every advance I listed was deemed socialism by the Conservatives of the day. I know you’d rather return to the 1890s. Most would not even if they “agree” with you about those evil progressives. It’s essentially a fascistic argument, this longing for an idyllic past before we had to deal with partisan politics. It’s an illusion. The idyllic past you and your acolytes imagine never existed.

      • Vicki

        DaveH writes:
        “And Those who are the Followers, who are either purely brainwashed, or they perceive that some day they will reach Leadership and share in the spoils.”

        And we know the name of both groups. “Useful Idiots”

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “It must be nice for you to have this receptive audience to accept whatever drivel you decide to post.”

        Why look. There’s one now. :)

    • Bill

      Jeff,
      You are one of the progressives that I was referring to. Your man goal is to confisgate our guns and redistribute (steal) our wealth.

      And you are trying to BS us into thinking you have a logical argument to support your ideas

      • JC

        Yep! And that’s how communists operate.

  • charlie

    “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”.
    Can we still make this claim as we peacefully watch the Constitution being shredded?
    We really need a modern ‘Assembly’ of the Armed Citizens to confront a tyrannical goverment. It may be our last hope to retain the title.

    I know the consequences of this statement, I do not expect the government to approve.
    On second thought, Patrick Henry did not look for approval from England.

    • redhawk

      Well said, Charlie! From Leonaidis to Xerxes at the battle if Thermopyle: “Come and get them!” Neither the FBI, the SS nor the SWAT teams can pass our Constitutions test!!

  • Robert E. Smith

    Notice that I used my real name, simply because I have no fear of the “bastards” who are trying to steal my country!!!!

    • Jeff

      Robert:

      It’s the folks on your side of the gun debate who are most likely to target their opponents and threaten violence. They’re the same people who publish the addresses of abortion doctors on their “kill lists.” People in favor of reasonable gun control are never going to bother.

      • FreedomFighter

        It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! –Patrick Henry March 23,1775

        Jeff may your chains of slavery rest easy and your master be kind, but I doubt it.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Old Henry

        We need Voter Control. Let’s start with the 14th and 19th Amendments.

        We must ban all voters with large capacities for ignorance – women, blacks, Mexicans as they have shown their large capicity for ignorance. Most recently in 2008 and 2012.

        We must do it for the Chilen.

        • Jeff

          Old Dog:

          If they made you president, how long would it take you to clean up the whole mess? You’d take us back to “aught 7″ before we had all these problems (minorities, women, gays, younameit). BTW: Does your granddaughter know you’re on her computer again?

      • DaveH

        Jeff, you are talking nonsense.
        It is the Liberal Progressives who are using the Force of Government to impose their will on other good people.
        Don’t confuse the real criminals, who will get weapons one way or the other, with the good people whose rights of self-defense are being trampled by Pushy Controlling Liberal Progressives.

        • Jeff

          Where do most criminals get their guns, Dave? From the same source you get yours!

      • DaveH

        FreedomFighter says — “Jeff may your chains of slavery rest easy and your master be kind, but I doubt it”.
        Most likely FF, Jeff is one of the slave masters or at least has aspirations of being one. Most likely he is feeding at the public trough — teacher, government worker, unionist, or some other group of advantage-seekers.

      • JC

        Jeff says:
        January 14, 2013 at 11:56 am
        Where do most criminals get their guns, Dave? From the same source you get yours!
        ______________________________________________________________________

        From Holder and Obama?

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “People in favor of reasonable gun control are never going to bother”

        That’s good to hear I was afraid this newspaper was an example of what progressives called reasonable. http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/199963/gawker-releases-list-of-gun-owners-in-new-york-city/

      • JC

        Jeff says:

        January 14, 2013 at 8:14 am

        Robert:

        It’s the folks on your side of the gun debate who are most likely to target their opponents and threaten violence. They’re the same people who publish the addresses of abortion doctors on their “kill lists.” People in favor of reasonable gun control are never going to bother.
        ____________________________________________________________________
        Now that’s entirely laughable.
        Didn’t two east coast “liberal” newspapers just publish the names and addresses of gun owners? That is a criminally irresponsible thing for them to have done and another good argument for NO registration.

    • http://none nick beck

      i also do likewise as i feel the same—-we will probably be targeted first, however if we are READY we will have the first chance to respond and set in motion the whole mess as i do believe will follow on. lock and load–hoorah……

      • Jeff

        You mean targeted like Sarah Palin did to Gabby Giffords? Who would target you except one of your neighbors?

      • JeffH

        Take notice – with just a few exceptions the usual contingent of anti-gun progressive shills is minimal on this thread today.

        Why you may ask or know?

        Simple…[Editor’s note: In order to encourage a thoughtful and meaningful dialogue, comment to this column will be strictly monitored. The moderator has been instructed to remove all comments that contain ad hominem attacks on the author or other commenters. Make your case in a civil manner. Be respectful of other opinions. Do not disparage others if you want your comments to remain. Understand that the comment policy will be strictly enforced. -- BL]

        Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

        • Jeff

          But DaveH’s personal insults remain? Those seem to be the ground rules here.

      • Dennis48e

        Jeff says: ” Does your granddaughter know you’re on her computer again?”

        And you dare to accuse DaveH of personal attacks.

        • Jeff

          Have you read some of the crazy stuff he posts?

      • sam1966

        Have you ever read some of the posts you have posted Jeff? No facts and no sources. Though they are full of lies, rhetoric, innuendo, and hate. Oh, they also are full of personal attacks. Classic 5th column strategy. Here is something that Jeff needs to read about what his ilk really want to do to this country:

        http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-control-dictator-style-tyrants-who-banned-firearms-before-slaughtering-the-people/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

        “The great pillars of all government and of social life are virtue, morality, and religion (CHRISTIANITY). This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.”

        Patrick Henry
        Letter to Archibald Blair
        January 08, 1799

  • rendarsmith

    “According to a recent poll, Congress’ favorability ranks below lice, cockroaches, colonoscopies and root canals.”

    Yet we keep re-electing these same bastards over and over again. Who’s more foolish, the fool or the fool that follows him?

    • steve

      29 of the 32 of the 34 who voted for the 1994 assault weapons ban have been voted out of Congress, I believe, and I hope that the people will speak up loudly with their vote in 2/14 and if need be. In other ways.
      There are those who vote for a living and those who work for a living, but if the system collapses under its own weight. Those who vote for a living will get mighty hungry.

      • http://none nick beck

        steve –lets keep reminding them of these facts– right on

      • Old Henry

        steve,

        It is not who votes. It is who counts the votes. That became painfully clear last November.

        • Jeff

          Old Dog:

          The Republicans controlled the voting apparatus in all the swing states.

      • redhawk

        Jeff,

        Let’s to a county by county count of the last election and see who wins each state. You know the answer and so do I! The Kenyan with the fake birth records wouldn’t come close!

        • Jeff

          You go right ahead. Karl Rove and Dick Morris will help you prove that Romney really won as did McCain, Wilkie, and Harold Stassen.

  • A Murricun

    What I’m sure Bob knows, and simply omitted for lack of space is the likely resistance to gun seizure from state and local governments and LEOs. Likewise, a Federal agent who owns a home and has kids in school in one of those places may be deterred from carrying out a Ruby Ridge-type atrocity.

    • Old Henry

      A Murricun,

      If that were true, Ruby Ridge would not have occurred.

      There should be a Nuremberg-type trial for everyone involved in that atrocity – starting at the TOP.

      • Vin Price

        True! That and Waco, also!

  • Deerinwater

    I personally feel that many of you are over reacting, while in this case, over reacting is better than under reacting.

    While I wish you would quite using this “Blanket term” The Left or Democrats. ~ as it not the whole damn party ~ but small individual groups and action committees, womens groups, etc. and for good reason! Their babies are dead! And we don’t want anymore dead children!!!! killed by some nutcase, where it’s with a gun or a car and a 6 pack of beer.

    You can go through all the facts and figures of how people have managed to kill people, rocks, sticks hammers, ball bats, saws, knives ~ but you are missing the point.

    There must be found a way to hold gun-owners responsible for the misuse of guns! It’s not the gun but the misuse of the gun by PEOPLE!

    Not how are we to do that without compromising the rights of gun ownership?

    It is good that you mount this opposition, for if we don’t the 2nd amendment could be compromised in some overriding zeal to claim something has been done. ~ but keep your attention on the issues at hand and how can elected officials responded to this painful out-cry ~ to stop this madness!

    If it were up to me, I’d have ID badges and armed guards at every door of every schoolhouse in the nation. In every bank building, every court house, ~ at anywhere the civil peace, freedoms and liberties warrants need of protection or seen as threatened. We must protect the innocent that live together inside a world that is NOT innocent but mean and very ugly.

    Guns is not the threat and don’t concern me but mentally sick, deranged people and idiots in love with guns certainly do.

    • RivahMitch

      You wrote “If it were up to me, I’d have ID badges and armed guards at every door of every schoolhouse in the nation. In every bank building, every court house, ~ at anywhere the civil peace, freedoms and liberties warrants need of protection or seen as threatened. We must protect the innocent that live together inside a world that is NOT innocent but mean and very ugly. ”

      Sounds to me as if , in the interests of security (“protecting the innocent”) you want to create the ultimate police state. Personally, as a ‘Nam vet, I resent the hell out of being X-rayed, barefoot and possibly groped at airports because the government insists on allowing those from hostile areas into my country and doesn’t want me able to defend myself. I also resent being told that some parks are inaccessible because that same government refuses to defend our borders and doesn’t want me to defend myself. The idea of ID cards and armed guards at schools and, banks, malls, subways, etc, has even less appeal.

      I once briefly spent time in a country with armed kids, working for the government and carrying fully automatic military weapons guns on every corner demanding to see “papers”, passports, etc. It did not leave me feeling secure. No Thanks.

      • Deerinwater

        Well, Sir. That is not what I said , or intended to say. ~ You said that ~ not I.

        All those pictures and ideas fell out of your head. How they got there is something only you might shed some light on.

        There has been private security forces employed and operating in this country since beforeJesse James developed a fascination with trains.

        I did not say a damn worded about government security forces or arming children.

        Private security is a thriving industry and will only continue to gain popularity in the coming decades ahead. ~ It’s a job creator ~ it’s useful ~ and becoming more necessary as any sick or demented ba$tard with an attitude can exercise their 2nd amendment rights, when they buy it or steal it as we see that stealing for a criminal mind has never been too far outside the boundaries of normal behavior.

        This combination of zealotry and twisted minds is every bit as deadly as guns.

      • Old Henry

        The only thing standing in the way of the NWO and their global govt is the United States.

        The only thing between the NWO and control / elimination of the United States is the armed citizenry.

        Remember, the Japs did not fear our military in 1942. They feared the armed citizenry.

      • DaveH

        Deer says — “This combination of zealotry and twisted minds is every bit as deadly as guns”.
        Then why do you display those in your comments, Deer?

    • dan

      safety is an illusion

      • JC

        So is the “right” to feel safe.

      • Vicki

        JC says:
        “So is the “right” to feel safe.” referring to it being an illusion.

        May I respectfully disagree? You DO have the inalienable right to feel safe. You also are the ONLY POWER who can make you feel safe. No law restricting the rights of others can ever force you to feel safe.

        Thus the entire argument by gun-grabbers that you and I having guns infringes on their right to feel safe is bogus. Not because the right is an illusion but because THEY and THEY alone have the ultimate power to FEEL safe.

      • JC

        Vicki, you may always disagree…and I’ll always be interested in your reasons…

        I don’t believe the “right to feel safe” is written anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The right to self defense is though, and if that makes you feel safer (it does me) then fine…but the right to “feel safe” is not a right I understand all on it’s own.

        What I’m getting at is that the bedwetters don’t have the right to feel safe when it restricts my right to self defense.
        One is enshrined, one isn’t.

    • DaveH

      Deer says — “There must be found a way to hold gun-owners responsible for the misuse of guns! It’s not the gun but the misuse of the gun by PEOPLE!”.

      Why should “gun-owners” in general be responsible for the reprehensible actions of the perpetrators, Deer?
      Should you be held responsible for the actions of bearded criminals because you have a beard?

      When you figure out how to stop bad people from killing good people, maybe you could impart that wisdom to one of the most heavily gun-controlled countries in the world:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)

      • deerinwater

        david says; ” Why should “gun-owners” in general be responsible for the reprehensible actions of the perpetrators, Deer?”

        Are you attempting to tell me that they are not gun owners David?

        Just gun predators?

        Maybe you need to rethink your attack, ~ seems a little weak.

    • CZ52

      “There must be found a way to hold gun-owners responsible for the misuse of guns!”

      Why should gun owners be held responsible for the actions of a few criminals? The ones who should be held responsible are the ones committing the crime.

      • deerinwater

        I’m calling a criminal a gun owner. ~ Does he not have a gun? and if he stole it ~ who allowed that to happen?

      • JC

        We must hold car owners responsible for car accidents! All of them!
        (barking lunatic)

      • CZ52

        “I’m calling a criminal a gun owner. ~”

        You sir are implying that ALL gun owners are responsible for the action of the few in your post i originaly refered to. If you had meant only the criminal you would have in some way specified that in said post.

    • Vin Price

      I realize I’m beating a dead horse, but the only way to stop these atrocities is to react to them immediately, not the statistical 14+ minutes it takes for a police response. When I was in grammar school K – 8) it was not impossible for the older kids to bring a rifle or shotgun into school with the intent of going hunting after school. This was in Jersey City, NJ mind you, about as urban an area as you could find. No-one objected and no-one used any of these guns to kill or wound their fellow school mates. Having guns in and around schools is not a recipe for disaster the way knee jerk liberals would have you believe. Instead having firearms available to the sane people in Sandy Hook, OR Columbine, or several other places may well have kept the carnage to a minimum.
      Having said that, it’s still a side issue. Our rights under the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights are delineated to KEEP the government at bay. It’s an ongoing battle and will always be so. Once one of these greedyguts gets into office they soon find it’s a great way to get perks if they pander to lobbyists. What would help reduce the abuses of power would be to impose term limits. Say 12 years total in elected federal office, including senator, representative AND president. No exceptions. Put all of them back into the Medicare pool, and limit pensions to half pay of the most expensive office they achieve. After that, let them get a real job if they want more money. Oh yeah, ban them from joining any company that has contributed to their campaign funds for 5 years. ( Probably impossible to police, but I can dream.).

    • USArmy Retired

      Deerinwater
      Some of what you say is very true. In answer to your comments about correcting the problem is to not let the media make celebrities of the nutjobs, enforce the laws that are currently on the books, and close all the loopholes in the judicial system. A return to capital punishment would be a good start. When people know there are harsh consequences they tent to not do things.

    • Vicki

      Deerinwater writes:
      “There must be found a way to hold gun-owners responsible for the misuse of guns! It’s not the gun but the misuse of the gun by PEOPLE!”

      Trivial. This problem was solved over 200 years ago by people FAR wiser than any politician today. We follow the Constitution. It’s all there. The methods to hold gun-owners responsible for their INDIVIDUAL misuse of ANY tool.

      - Deerinwater: “Not how are we to do that without compromising the rights of gun ownership?”

      Trivial. This problem was solved over 200 years ago by people FAR wiser than any politician today. We follow the Constitution. It’s all there. The methods to not compromise the rights of PEOPLE.

    • r.p.

      Deerinwater says: “There must be found a way to hold gun-owners responsible for the misuse of guns! It’s not the gun but the misuse of the gun by PEOPLE!”

      Good idea!! And on that same note, there must be found a way to hold all car owners responsible for the misuse of cars and all brain owners for the misuse of brains. Now I know why every citizen is suspect.

      • Jeff

        The New York legislation makes some provision for a gun’s owner to be responsible for its use by another. I assume that means civil liability, but at least it will make gun owners a lot more careful about locking their guns in a safe.

  • Jeff

    I believe you are right on. There has been to much blood already shed in defence of our freedom and unalienable rights. Must history repeat itself. Must the shedding of blood be yet again.
    Freedom is never free. Our forefathers taught us so. They gave their lives that their children could be free from oppression and Tyranny. Must we likewise do the same? We face an enemy from within that is seeking to destroy our very freedoms we have enjoyed at the expense of those that have already given theirs.
    It has been said by our enemy that we will take you over without firing a shot. It looks like they are trying. I have heard people say they will resist with their very lives. The thing is many of these people are very good marksmen and have knowledge of combat to the extreme. All I can say is I pray that people will come to their senses before we cross the line of no return. I would no want to be responsible for setting off the next civil war, but then again that is what the enemy would like to see happen. Mass death, Americans turning guns and fire power on Americans, Thousands even ten’s of thousands in a bloody massacre over what? a political issue that could be solved if both sides could just come to an agreement. Let’s hope that cooler heads prevail. God Bless what’s left of America. If it comes to it, we will rally, we will prevail, we will take our country back, we will make our nation one nation under God again, we will restore the faith. We will let free men be free. We will indeed and in truth honor the creed of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. God Bless America!!!! and Vive la liberty!!!!!

    • Larry K.

      this won’t happen with gun confiscation, guns in the hands of citizens are the only thing that’s stopping this government from making slaves out of us and putting us in prisons and death camps…do not give up your guns no matter what.

      • GALT

        It didn’t stop them…….you are a slave ( peon ) and government was simply
        the means………and remains the “overseer”, but not the “owner”!!!!!

        The “owner’s” are in the process of attempting to “eliminate” the remaining
        “obligations” or costs, that an actual slave owner would have to assume
        “a priori”………..”peonage” is far more practical and profitable, than ‘slavery”,
        which was a lesson that was learned “reluctantly” by former slave owners,
        as the result of the conflict which emancipated them.

        This permitted a re-introduction of the previous principles of exploitation;

        “A man must live by his work, and his wages must be at least enough to maintain him. They must even on most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family and the RACE of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.”

        while simultaneously, and thus far, successfully avoiding:

        “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

        Unfortunately, many of the “peons” have been misdirected as to the source
        of their problems;

        They believe the “overseer” is the “problem” and the “owners” are the “solution”.

        This makes THEM…….really, really stupid.

      • Vin Price

        Look up the Warsaw Uprising. When the Germans occupied Poland, they forced the Jews into ghettos, even moreso than they had been. of course gun confiscation occurred right away, but they missed two pocket pistols. The Jews knew what was coming and organized resistance to the occupiers. Using weapons captured with those two pistols as seed weaponry, they held out on the Warsaw ghetto for 30 days, all the while using short wave radio co ask for help. It’s Roosevelt’s (D) shame that he kept the US from even parachuting supplies in to them. Imagine how well they could have done with a decent supply of arms!

    • dan

      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
      and tyrants. by Thomas Jefferson.

    • http://none nick beck

      the political issue MUST be solved but WITHOUT compromise period

    • Frank Kahn

      Without prior knowledge of your sentiments, it might be difficult to see your double speak here. You appear to advocate peaceful solutions, but again you might back violent opposition.

      Which side are you on?

      There is a part of your post that gives us the key to your allegiance. You state that it can be solved peacefully if they would only compromise. They who? If I did not miss the point of this thread, the issue is US (citizens) against THEM (politicians). If the issue is our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, what compromise is there, and to whom are you giving the authority?

      I have noted, in the past, that gun control advocates say we pro-gun people use fear tactics to promote our stance. Well, Jeff, are you not doing the same thing when you talk about 10′s of thousands dying for this cause? Is it not a matter of fear you wish to instill when you say Americans killing Americans?

      Here is the compromise that THEY need to make. It is none of their (federal governments) business to decide what ARMS we CAN or CANNOT own. WE DONT WANT them to MAKE LAWS ABOUT GUN BANS to MAKE US SAFE. It does not work that way, GUN BANS dont increase safety, there are many studies and statistics which show that they dont.

      So, lets compromise:

      YOU (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) DONT BAN OUR GUNS AND WE (THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS) WONT FIGHT YOU WITH DEADLY FORCE.

      See how simple that compromise is? If you leave the law abiding citizens alone, they will remain nice and peaceful. If you try to punish them for the criminal acts of others, they will get very angry and ugly.

  • Charles

    I would like to add to the discussion about Britain. Here is a quote from GunFacts dot info.
    ————————
    British crime statistics

    The U.K. measures crime using two different processes:

    British Crime Survey (BCS): The Home Office conducts surveys of the population to determine how often subjects have been affected by criminal activity. Data is projected to reflect the entire population.

    Police reporting: Crimes are reported to the police and nationwide, census-level statistics are summarized.

    The BCS has been reporting a declining crime rate in the UK while police reporting has shown an increase. The BCS has routinely been criticized because it under reports crime due to the following factors:

    • Murdered and imprisoned people do not answer surveys
    • Some crimes are not surveyed when victims are below age 16
    • Crime against institutions (bank robbery, etc.) are not included
    • Crimes are recorded at final disposition (conviction/acquittal), leaving many crimes completely unreported
    ———————————————-

    The first point, about murdered people not answering surveys, may shock some liberals, but pay particular attention to the final point. It is impossible to know just how many crimes are NOT REPORTED because the reporting is held off until final disposition. This fact alone skews the statistics in favor of the liberal agenda.

    Even more important to notice is the statement that the BCS has been reporting a declining crime rate while police reporting HAS SHOWN AN INCREASE! Which version do you suppose the liberals are quoting?

    • Dennis48e

      I read somewhere (don’t remember where now) a few years ago that for statistical purposes the Brits combined several related crimes into one. In other words if there was a series of muggings in an area that appeared to be committed by the same person or persons they would count them as one crime for statistical purposes. Makes the numbers look so much better if true.

    • Vicki

      Charles says:
      “I would like to add to the discussion about Britain. Here is a quote from GunFacts dot info.”

      I would like to point out that it is irrelevant. We are done with the claim by gun-grabbers that we should be punished for the misdeeds of a few. ~300 MILLION Americans did not shoot someone yesterday nor anytime in their lives. STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

  • E Gabris

    Being immersed this week in the national discussion about future restrictions on the ownership of guns, it has become apparent that this is not a Second Amendment issue. The US has had for many years laws prohibiting Americans from owning fully automatic guns, machine guns an other military combat-type weapons and noone has challenged these laws as a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The real question is where to draw the line between guns that Americans can legally own and those they cannot. So the issue here is should assault weapons of the type used at Sandy Hook and other recent massacres be restricted.

    Many gun advocated have argued that Americans need weapons to ensure they have the firepower to overturn a tyrannical government if it infringes on our Constitutional rights. If this is really their belief, they should be arguing that the ban on ownership of fully automatic weapons, machine guns and similar combat weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment. These weapons would be essential if an armed rebellion has any hope of being successful.

    When the discussion is framed this way, the Second Amendment is not part of the discussion. The decision facing Americans is to determine the type of society in which we wish to live.

    • Bill

      E Gabris
      NBC news had a story that Adam Lanza’s AR-15 was left in the car and was not used in Sandy Hook. So your argument about “The assualt wepons used in the Sandy Hook massacre” is just political rhetoric and not fact.

      The real issue is how do we protect ourselves from the all of the people turning to crime because of the progessives failed economic policies

      • RivahMitch

        I’d say that you’re right but only if you include the government in “all of the people turning to crime”.

    • David Jepson

      E Gabris, please. Your argument holds no water. If I wanted a fully automatic weapon, I could get one with special licenses and fees. Most people cannot afford one or the ammo. But I do need my Rifle to protect my family from intruders and from an out of control government. Now, that is my right. You have NO RIGHT to try to take it away from me. Now if people like you were really upset over the murder of babies at Sandy Hook, well then friend, you would be really upset over the murders of 5000 babies everyday in abortion mills throughout our country. Why are you not protesting these senseless, murders of children each day. Who the hell do you and others of your ilk think you are to try to take my rights, and march in favour of these murders of children. If you care so much, care about these murders. I wish to live in a society that has freedom given to us by God and the Constitution. The same freedom my forefathers fought to preserve. We are not Europe, we are different. We will not give up our rights, we will not give up our guns, we will not give up our God. We will not give up our FREEDOM. MOLON LABE!!

      • Lee

        David, so well said. They keep saying that an assault weapon was used at Sandy Hook and that is so wrong. It is Obama’s press that is putting out that unture bull crap. Makes me mad as heck. E. Gabris needs to get the right info. It even showed the police taking the rifle out of the trunk of his car but that info was quickly deleted from and by the press. My husband and I are both retired military and will fight, if it is necessary, to keep our rights and our guns. When you say our God and our Country, I totaly agree with with you. God bless America and come back with mighty strike against all that want him gone.

      • CZ52

        “They keep saying that an assault weapon was used at Sandy Hook and that is so wrong. ”

        You are correct. Even if all shots fired had come from the AR-15 there would still have been no assualt weapon used for the AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle It is NOT an assualt weapon (rifle) . Assualt weapon is a term coined by the anti-gun people to hopefully confuse people into equating the gun they want to ban with an Assualt Rifle and demonize whatever weapon they have their sights on.

        • Jeff

          Thank you for that. I’m sure it will make the parents of those children feel much better. Let’s call that class of gun, capable of shooting up to 100 rounds in a minute, “George.:” Then we can ban George guns. Is that better?

      • JC

        Jeff says:

        January 14, 2013 at 1:56 pm

        Thank you for that. I’m sure it will make the parents of those children feel much better. Let’s call that class of gun, capable of shooting up to 100 rounds in a minute, “George.:” Then we can ban George guns. Is that better?

        You can call the guns “George” if you want but to keep that in line with the liberal ideology,
        you’ll have to call them “HIGH POWERED GEORGE GUNS OF MASS DESTRUCTION”
        (In a shrill and very high pitched voice of course)
        So that just like everything else the lib’s do…it would be suitably hysterical.

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “Let’s call that class of gun, capable of shooting up to 100 rounds in a minute, “George.:” Then we can ban George guns. Is that better?”

        No it is NOT better. We are way past tired of being blamed for the actions of a few. ~300 MILLION Americans did NOT use any kind of gun to kill ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING US for the acts of criminals.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT. STOP IT NOW.

        • Jeff

          It is interesting you look at an assault weapons ban or restrictions as personal punishment. How about the ban on leaded gasoline? Is that personal punishment as well?

          • Steve

            [comment has been edited] especially about our Founding Documents and the restrictions on tyrannical government overreaches which are restricted in those documents. There is no such provision for gasoline, there is however a provision for defense and revolt against a government gone wild. In fact, the Founding Fathers took their collective time to ensure it read very clearly. Jeff seems to able to comprehend that is does not matter how many people believe like he does (which I must confess is most probably a very small number), that those RIGHTS cannot be removed, reduced, or modified…no matter what the “reason” at the time.

          • Frank Kahn

            We, gun rights advocates (not gun nuts), dont consider Guns to be toys, why do you?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            What about my friend’s toddler killed by a car? She should be out there advocating the confiscation of all cars?

            Cars, Doctors, hospitals, and vaccinations kill, maim, more children then anything else in the USA. Do the research.

            I admit I personally believe that this government had a hand in what happened – and that we do not know the truth of what happened. The government controlled the corporate media to dispense the information they wanted released, in the way they wanted it released.
            The Feds were there immediately – instead of having to be called, as is normally done.

          • Jeff

            Yeah, it’s the same thing. Just because you can find some logical connection between two very different things, it does not mean they are similar. Knowing the difference is what constitutes the beginning of wisdom. Some of your fellow gun enthusiast conspiracy theorists are annoying a guy who tried to help out after the Connecticut shooting. They’ve got him linked in with the Rothschilds and the Bilderbergs based on shall we say scant evidence.

            http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          They are not “punishing” us. What they are doing is using this as a pretext for further dividing the populace; and hopefully disarming more Americans as a secondary benefit. This has nothing to do with criminal actions – actually, from drugs to “terrorist activity” within – and without – our borders, to many murders, those in our government is to blame.

      • JC

        Jeff says:

        January 15, 2013 at 7:36 am

        It is interesting you look at an assault weapons ban or restrictions as personal punishment. How about the ban on leaded gasoline? Is that personal punishment as well?
        ___________________________________________________________________
        It’s interesting…no actually it’s boring and predictable, how you try to divert and obscure
        the issue at hand, which is gun rights. Duck and Dive is what you Libbies do because you have nothing to stand on but emotional bulls&%! and that just doesn’t cut it…at all.

    • Dinger

      Point: IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO OWN A MACHINE GUN OR SELECTABLE FULLY AUTOMATIC “ASSAULT” RIFLE. You Must Pay for a $200 TAX Stamp and register the weapon with the Revenoors. BEFORE purchasing the Weapon.

      • Bill

        You are right, Dinger
        The $200 is per year. So, if you own 3 automatic weapons for 10 years, it will cost you $6,000 in license fees

      • GALT

        If you are going to go through the trouble of “owning” them, and in this case
        I am speaking of weapons that are switchable, not actual machine guns such
        as the M60, then it would seem practical to purchase those, which can be
        converted fairly easily.

        The M -14, was issued to line troops, in semi and selectable auto modes, but
        all were capable of both, the only difference was that the semi’s, had a metal
        hub, where the auto’s had a selector switch……..the hub prevented selection,
        but it was only secured by a screw, and could be easily removed with an
        allen wrench, and replaced.

        One would assume that the need for such a weapon would not be
        one that came as a surprise, or that the circumstances were such
        that such a choice would even make sense…..since you lose both
        accuracy and expend ammo at far greater rate…….while lowering
        the effective result. ( unless you are being overrun by a human
        wave attack of crazed idiots )

        Some weapons, such as the Uzi and HK do offer easier control,
        on auto……but accuracy is to be preferred in any case, so that one
        can engage multiple targets in semi auto, placing two rounds on
        each target accurately, than would ever be possible in auto,
        unless they were retarded……and stood in a group, just to be nice.

        None of this is rocket science, knowledge and tools are all that
        is needed and this includes magazines…….and if all else fails,
        this is one instance where the free market will not.

        This is all posturing in any case, since another fact that is known
        to all is that, at least in this country, prohibition doesn’t work….
        and despite the posturing……. ( and the paranoia ) it is better
        to know where the weapons are, than to create a situation where
        you know there will be weapons, but you won’t know where
        they are………..so keep yelling……..time, boredom and the next
        news cycle will solve or end this “distraction”, to be replaced
        by the next one.

      • matt B

        It is a one time $200 tax stamp, not every year. Get your facts straight!!!

    • dan

      machine guns SHOULD be legal ? They ARE legal if you get the right permits and pay enough fees to the right bureaucrats. The rich are never without recourse…I just wish I could be as well armed as the local gang-bangers

      • Jeff

        Gangbangers live a very dangerous lifestyle, and they tend to die young. I’m sure there are very few your age.

      • Dennis48e

        “Gangbangers live a very dangerous lifestyle, and they tend to die young. I’m sure there are very few your age.”

        At what age they die and how many are of any particular age has no bearing on whether you need guns at least somewhat equal the them.

    • http://www.facebook.com/surflaunch.overlord.7 Surflaunch Overlord

      Most would argue that point nad many make the argument that any law, including the ones currently restricting gun ownership and requiring registration, are an infringment on the second amendment and therby unconstitutional.
      The current battle/conversation is about the making up more useless gun restriction laws while ignoring the real problems that these restriction simpose on the law abiding public while allowing more freedom for criminals to do what they do with impunity.
      When seconds count, the Police are usually minutes away. Very few police actions are interdictions preventing crime. More like an armed documentation of what happend after the incident is over.
      Nothing can prevent or deter crime more that the general knowledge that there might be someone there that will resist.

      • Dennis48e

        ” Very few police actions are interdictions preventing crime.”

        While I cannot verify this I have read of instances where police officers watching a crime being committed because they were on traffic patrol or similar instead of criminal patrol

    • DaveH

      Gabris says — “The US has had for many years laws prohibiting Americans from owning fully automatic guns, machine guns an other military combat-type weapons and noone has challenged these laws as a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms”.

      Past laxity in enforcing the Constitution, Gabris, is no excuse for people to abandon the effort to force Leaders to obey the Constitution which they swear to obey.
      All of those Weapons could have been Constitutionally excepted by using the Amendment process if the States, or the People, or the Government, so desired. If they had pursued the legal course, one outcome may very well have been to require that our own Government also not possess those weapons of random and mass violence.
      Our Founders were wise in the Constitution they gave us, but the succeeding generations of people have been unwise in letting Government circumvent that Constitution.
      Government has always and will always seek to do what is best for itself.

    • DaveR

      You have just proven the wisdom of the founding fathers in their wording of the Second Amendment — not including any limitations as to the size, type or number of their arms.

  • JCS

    Well stated. God bless you.

  • rafael

    36 have been accused of spousal abuse

    7 have been arrested for fraud
    19 have been accused of writing bad checks

    117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted
    at least two businesses

    3 have done time for assault

    71, I repeat, 71 cannot get a credit card
    due to bad credit
    14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
    8 have been arrested for shoplifting

    21 currently are defendants in lawsuits,
    and
    84 have been arrested for drunk driving
    in the last year!

    It’s the 535 members of the
    United States Congre

    The same group of idiots that we re depending upon to solve our nation’s debt crisis!

  • ibcamn

    our rights came from our creator.so that’s why Obama is trampling all over our rights,he don’t believe in or want GOD around anywhere!and this is why his pet(the mainstream media)have not mentioned anything about the man with the shotgun in the school or as was said,domestic violence,and the stats showing that assault rifles are dam near non existant in violent crimes or assaults!and this is why Obama and his henchmen are doing what they please,GOD is not in their language anymore,remember?and can someone say,”start the impeachment proceedings”?!.a lawyer 2 years ago had and paid for,a billboard saying something to that effect and most people just scoffed at it,now their looking fr it!once all his healthcare laws really kick in,people are going to freak more than now and the people who voted this nightmare into the white house are going to sit back and never admit to voting for him!remember people, Obama has his wife at his side whispering bad things into his big ears!and he does what mama says.Mr and Mrs Marxist don’t believe in the constitution at all or the flag or us,Americans,his boss!he needs to go,legaly of course,if he broke the law,can he be held indefinetly for all the fedral laws he trampled on?can social services be called in for Obama abusing his children(brainwashing them and lying to them)i mean he has thousands of Americans children taken away from them every year for less than that!(also supports thousands of them murdered[aborted])i could go on,i just don’t like the man(or wife)in any way!!!

    • nc

      IBCAMN, AND GOD(?) seeing all the sins(?), crimes(?) and other transgressions(?) of Obama and Michele for four years saw fit to say “Americans have spoken, so Mr. President would please put your hand on the Bible and repeat after the Chief Justice…”

      FOUR MORE YEARS AND THE DOW’S UP! PEACE!!

      • r.p.

        Yippy the dow’s up. Woopie, it just past a few weeks ago the level it was at on 9/11/01. Of course todays gas is three times the cost compared to 01. and a $.60 loaf of bread is $2.50……………….yippeeeeie….The DOW’s UP!!!!!!!!

  • David Jepson

    A well written article containing more truths than our senators and congressmen can understand. You see, it goes beyond what they can comprehend. They, after all, are the ones in control. They are the ones that tell us what to think, wear, eat, drink, drive, what toilet to use. I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. What we have in the White House, the house and senate, are our enemies, at least most of them. When push comes to shove, and it will, then all I have to say is, ” MOLON LABE!!!”

  • Roger Nelson

    I am with you 100%. The liberals have brought gun control to this point and I, for one, will fight and die for my constitutional rights.

  • templeknight

    This is just another attempt to return us to serf or slave status, the founders were perceptive and blunt about why we have a 2nd amendment. And it was to protect us and the Constitution from overreaching politicians, wannabe dictators and a central government careening out of control of the people.

    • Jeff

      Blunt? You think the “well regulated militia” language is blunt? If the founders wanted you to have the right to do battle with the Government, why didn’t they put that language in the 2nd Amendment?

      • hipshotpercusion

        I don’t want insult you, Jeff, but why don’t you pick up some books on American history and read them. Then, maybe, you just might understand what our founders were thinking

        • Jeff

          I’ve read plenty and determining intent is rarely easy. We have the language to interpret in a modern context. When it comes to interpreting the 4th or the 8th Amendment, do we really care what George Washington thought “reasonable” or “cruel and unusual” meant? He was born in 1732. People born in 1932 are now dinosaurs. We do not need to interpret the language of the Bill of Rights exactly as it was interpreted 220 years ago or we’d still be hanging people for minor offenses.

      • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Clif

        They did and it has been often stated here, “against all enemies both foreign and domestic”. The government by stomping all over the constitution has become a domestic enemy because the oath is to “defend the constitution” What part don’t you understand?

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “…do we really care what George Washington thought “reasonable” or “cruel and unusual” meant?”

        Altogether to few actualy consider that it is something that should be considered and followed as to the meaning of the Constitution. If we dissagree with George Washington’s interpretation of or ideas of “reasonable” pr “unusual” then we have the right to amend the Constitution to clarify what we believe those terms to be.

      • Captain America

        Jeff, honestly, f you have a point just get it out in terms that can be backed-up with historical examples. First, I’d like to ask why you think there is nothing in the Founding Documents that allows The People to Overthrow the government? Your question, “If the founders wanted you to have the right to do battle with the Government, why didn’t they put that language in the 2nd Amendment?” The Founders put it in other places, specifically, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” BTW, does that sound somewhat familiar? It should, it came directly from the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, the Founders felt they needed to spell out EXACTLY what would cause A People to trow-off their government. We are fast approaching that time again. They say, “Those that do not learn from history, are bound to repeat it.” Maybe Washington should do some light reading…as should you Jeffrey.

  • http://none laidbackrebel

    Through the grapevine, yet from a reliable source, I have heard that a National Guard officer has been reactivated to act as a supply officer, and to provide supplies of ammunition to the selected ATF merceneries, as required for gun confiscation. That tells me that Lord Obama has already decided what he will do, regardless of recommendations, or laws, or The Constitution. Even if it is done incrementally, the end result of confiscation is the ultimate goal. And, the controllers of puppet, president Lord Obama commonly known as the illuminati,are actively seeking population reduction in this world. So even if we fight and die in a civil war, it just serves to achieve their goals. What we need to do is capture the illuminati, and help them change their minds, and consequently, their agenda. Something akin to what happened in the French revolution. It is reported by one source that the head family of the illuminati, the Rothchilds, is the owners of over 500 Trillion, dollars worth of value…….probably in the form of gold or silver.

    These people control the armies of the world, except for North Korea, and maybe one or two more,…I’m not sure. But be assured even if you live past gun confiscation, you will have no power to influence their agendas, unless you become a slave to their wishes. Our congress will probably give lip service to the 2nd amendment, and our rights, but that’s all it will be is lip service, to protect themselves with,” well…I tried”

    Do not be fooled. The illuminati know all to well how to play both ends against the middle, in order to provide the appearance of allowing all sides to enter the discussion. Don’t you believe it. I know you want to trust your senators, and congressman, but they all can be bought, bribed or threatened with death to their wives or children, to cause them to fall in line.

    Unless you are prepared to be a slave you must not give up your personal defense weapons. And unless you are prepared to die, you must give up your personal defense weapons.

    Don’t believe me…….Wait, and see. I SINCERELY WISH I WAS WRONG!!!

    i AM ALSO AWARE THAT WITH THIS LETTER, I MAY HAVE SIGNED MY OWN DEATH WARRANT.

    • Andy

      Excellent article! I’m encouraged by the number of readers who seem to understand what is really happening to our country. You are all so right–it is all smoke ‘n mirrors, and slight of hand. The government is doing exactly what it looks like they are doing–taking away our rights and enslaving us. You are also right in that we no longer have any say-so in Washington. The proverbial snowball is too large and rolling too fast to be stopped. Only a higher power (God), that we should all be praying to (as indicated in the Bible), can turn this around. And I’m afraid there just aren’t enough believers left to accomplish this.

      • Charlie

        Andy,,,
        The American Militia Leader is King Jesus Christ,,, Weapon rights come from King Jesus at Luke 22:36…Don’t forget to Pray Matthew 6:9—13 everyday ,,,read Matthew 6:33 and it’s easy to see that 1 Man can become as thousands under The Kingship of King Jesus Christ … Prayer Power is greater than a M-16, but, get both …Load your Mind with Scripture and your firearm with ammo for physical defense and taking turkeys for food…
        Meanwhile….. Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing…Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

    • Thomas Payne

      LBR….Amazingly accurate Sir!….You have NOT signed your own DW. You have stated what must be stated. Hats off to you!….TP

    • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

      Yep…lbr…you are correct.

      Sooo…as many of you people who have been posting to this site have noticed, there is indeed a “awakening wave” of people who are learning the truth of this world.

      The Illuminati are indeed real & they will succeed unless we begin talking about these taboo subjects. Inform your State reps & your local Sheriff’s that you will support them if they stand by the Constitution. If they do not…then you will help spread the word to get them fired & replaced.

      God Bless America & all Her Patriots that fight for Her.

      • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

        Soros, the ATF, DHS, and all the other progressive traitors have a notion of what their world is and will be. The Cacodemon/Lord of the Flies in charge of Obama has different ideas and none of the above have any idea how this will turn out.

        Don’t assume nothing happened Dec 22nd 2012, something did and the time for SHTF is almost here. I would not give any money to the 2014 Republicans because it isn’t going to matter. None of them would acknowledge God. Probation period for abortion is up and Satan is going to have his way with the USA.

        Daniel 9 is almost here and the Curse of the Zeroes is almost finished.

  • Sarah Hearn-vonfoerster

    If you really cannot live without multiple guns in order to feel safe in this country, just PLEASE keep them away from my property, my family and my space at any time. THIS I am guaranteed by our Founding,fair-minded Fathers. I have no plans to join the Militia(National Guard), so I have no need for a gun, but my Tazer is ever ready for anyone wishing to test my mettle. Try it!

    • RivahMitch

      and, while your tazer has one thug (government or self-selected) incapacitated, what do you do about his partner?

    • JC

      Well Sarah,
      Turning your property into a gun free zone is your choice. (Not a wise one)
      But don’t expect your Tazer to work as anything more than a paper weight.
      And don’t expect your property to remain “yours” for very long.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      Our first amendment was suppose to keep our windows of enlightment open to us.
      Our second amendment was given to us to be sure nobody closed it.

      • Charlie

        T C A,,,
        Does The Constitution replace or do away with The Holy Bible???……………….
        Meanwhile ……………………….
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

    • CZ52

      ” just PLEASE keep them away from my property, my family and my space at any time.”

      While you certainly have the right to ask that no one bring firearms onto your property you have NO right to tell anyone what they can or cannot possess in their/your presence once your family or yourself leave your property. If you truely wish to have no firearms in your and your families presence then you must become a total self supporting recluse and hope no criminals decide you will be easy pickings.

    • Captain America

      Sarah, let’s look at your argument for a minute:
      1. You are asking for criminals not to come into your home, or be around your family…under threat of being tazed?! Wow, good luck with that one! BTW, no one that DOES own guns has a sign in their yard that says “please come burglarize my house…I have a gun.” So, we all feel the same way about criminals in our home, the difference is I can actually stop them, you will have to ask them nicely.
      2. Please help us uneducated fools, by showing us exactly where, in any Founding Document, the “Right” you are guaranteed to keep people with guns away from you, your family, or your space…I must have missed that somewhere in the reading.
      3. Do you happen to know the maximum effective range of your tazer? If you do, do you happen to know the maximum effective range of my .45 ACP 1911 Commander? I dare say, they are vastly different. Also, how many shots you got in that thing there ACE?
      4. Try to get to know your legal, gun-possessing neighbors, as they may decide to intervene and help you, but probably only after they hear you praying to God (who you also probably don’t believe in right now) on that night when the tazer just didn’t work quite as promised.

      Bottom line, your “wants” although noble and honest, are completely void of rational and realistic thought. The facts are, you WILL meet a “bad person” at some time in your life, statistics prove that out. So, when you do meet that person, what will you do. That is the question; please spare me the Liberal blather about gun control reducing crime too, because that argument is also proven false.

      Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

    • Vin Price

      OK, we’ll keepour guns away from you and your property – if we find out where you are, but, remember that when you confront 2 or more with your single shot taser.

  • Bill Harrison

    A Patriot Must Always Be Ready To Defend His Freedom Against His Government

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      “In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce and brave man,hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for it cost nothing to be a patriot”…Mark Twain

    • Jeff

      “A Patriot Must Always Be Ready To Defend His Freedom Against His Government”

      Yes, you never know when the Government might do something really horrible like desegregate the schools or let the gays marry each other. In fact, I think it’d be a great idea for the left and the right to be equally armed and for everyone to resist everything with guns. The right could use its guns to try to stop the Government from giving poor people healthcare and the left could use its guns to resist the Government sending troops overseas to prop up dictators (Viet Nam). That would be quite a society. We wouldn’t need to vote anymore. We could just have a mini Civil War over every budget decision.

      Or do you get to decide when the issue is of sufficient importance that the gun nuts can officially declare it tyranny? I hope Sarah Palin never gets that position because she thinks everything she disagrees with is tyranny. What you’re describing is the ultimate dystopia.

      • Captain America

        Jeff, if you weren’t so wrong, reading your junk would be comical. You say, ” The right could use its guns to try to stop the Government from giving poor people healthcare.” Do you really think the government can GIVE anyone anything?? I mean where does it get that in which it gives? From people like me, that’s who…IT’S MINE; therefore, I can also help decide who gets MY MONEY. “The poor” is that term also like “The rich”? Who defines “poor” and when does one get “enough” from people like me? Do we allow “the poor” to have children they can’t afford? How many can they have? I mean really, since it’s my money, I want answers to those questions. Because Obama said “Only people who make above $250K/year will see an increase in taxes, to help them pay their fair share.” I saw mine go way down…and I don’t make anywhere close to $250K. What happened to YOUR paycheck Jeffrey? Or maybe you don’t work, which is why you’re all over this board ; )

      • JC

        Thanks Captain…saved me a bunch of typing there. ;-)

      • Bill

        Jeff
        So, tell us how you really feel

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    Not to disagree with you Mr. Livingston but what’s happening is exactly what’s suppose to happen. Politicians with very few exceptions are fools or in there with those who plan on turning America’s Constituttional Republic into a Communist style State. The fools are only interested in getting elected. They’ll sell their souls for that. They’ll support anything to get elected.

    Men like Obama and his ilk are working directly from the Communist manual. They convince the ignorant, of which there are many, that their enemies, in this case gun owners, are repugnant, must be dealt with by them. As we study the rise and fall of Hitler and Lenin we find America’s going down exactly the same path. It’s taken a little longer because of our torn constitution but they can taste their victory. The people themselves pick and choose what parts of it satifies their own lusts and ignore the rest. You CANNOT reason with these people. They are liars as they are sworn into office. Their lust and greed has replaced any common sense they might of had.

    If we say there are two sides in the district of criminals, here’s the situation. Their side is organized, backed by Satan, They have a designated leader, in this case Obama, and the rest fall in line. Our side has, what? at least four designated leaders. Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Constitutionalist and so on, and those groups are splintered within themselves. It’s called divide to conquer. To many people on our side want to walk on both sides of the fence. Their divided in their thinking. That’s why they didn’t support Ron Paul. He doesn’t.This side must unite; write a statement of principles that all of them would follow. They must write “In God we trust”, and prove it. That’s how America came to be.

    This is where we are:
    THESIS: A society in somewhat peace with itself
    ANTI-THESIS: A society in a state of political turmoil (America today)
    SYNTHESIS: The society that emerges from the turmoil
    We are going to emerge from this either as the worst communist state the world has ever known or repent to God and revive our Consitutional Republic. Remember, Obama hasn’t even been sworn in yet. Again, read and beiieve John 3:16, and the rest of the bible. When the Lord returns, then we’ll have the kind of leader we’re all hoping for.

  • Meg

    Excellent article. Sensible. Fact based and historically supported. The problem is the real reason for the the 2nd amendment means nothing to those who are conditioned by schools to consider even the picture of a gun offensive. They don’t worry about the reason for the amendment because they like big government taking care of everything. If they have to give up freedom to never worry about taking care of themselves, that is progress. Their technical term is “useful idiots.” Some day, they are likely to discover the first part of that term to be transient. However, it is likely too late to correct the second part of the term.

    • Jeff

      So, Meg, you’re always packing heat? Grocery store? Doctor’s office? What if they don’t want guns on the premises? Whose “freedom” prevails then – the gun owner or the property owner? What if your employer doesn’t want you bringing your Glock to work? Can you sue? What if that co-worker you don’t like finds out you bring your Glock to work and she decides to mount an AR-15 in her cubicle? Everybody has lots of right in Meg’s World. Does anybody have the right to not be surrounded by guns and their nutty owners?

      • MikeO48

        In Wyoming it is legal to carry a weapon; concealed or not, anywhere. It is also legal for a business to not allow guns in the establishment. In Wyoming we respect the wishes of others, so we honor the “no gun” policy of a business, and disarm prior to entry. Unfortunately Jeff, good old common sense and courtesy has left the building in this country.

        • Jeff

          So, when Meg or John Wayne enter a building in Wyoming and they disarm, where do they put the Glock? Do the banks have safes for safekeeping of guns or do people just leave them in their cars? If you leave your gun in the car while you’re at work for 8 hours, isn’t that an invitation for car thieves to get hold of your gun?

      • Bob W.

        Jeff, It is none of your damn business what I do with my gun while I go into an establishment which does not allow guns. But I go in very few of them, prefering to go where they are welcomed because of the added security of having lawful armed citizens on the premises.

      • Bill

        Jeff,
        Why don’t you move to Chicago where they have strict gun laws. I am sure you will be much safer

        • Jeff

          Wild Bill:

          I am fine where I am. I’ve lived a long time and have never needed to have a gun. I don’t have a red sports car either. The equipment works just fine if you catch my drift.

          But Chicago’s or Illinois’ gun laws can;’t do much good as long as there are states where there are no standards. We have highways and freeways running all over the country now, so state or city restrictions are pretty weak.

      • rocketride

        Knowing which business owners want me disarmed and which don’t informs all decisions I make about whom to do business with. . . They have the right to request that my gun not enter their place of business, and I have the right to accompany my gun in not entering it. Everybody’s happy- or if they’re not, it’s not MY problem.

      • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

        I’ve had a permit to carry for over 45 years. I rarely carry. I don’t go where I might need one intentionally and respect other people’s wishes. I do find myself carrying more often now-a-days.

      • Ann

        Jeff, I totally understand that you don’t like guns and don’t want guns in America. I don’t like guns either. But let’s say guns are banned; what’s next? First, who and how will prevent Russia, China, North Korea, Middle East from selling or re-selling illegal firearms? After all, you would not insist that in America it’s impossible to buy cocaine, heroine, LCD or other illegal drugs. Second, how by making law obeying people defenseless are you going to stop violent crime? Britain, which is very popular among liberals for their gun controls is considered by British media the most violent country in Europe:
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
        Last question: probably you know that latest events caused huge increases in gun sales. People who buy all these firearms believe that they don’t break any laws. Most of them plan to use them purely for sport shooting, hunting and their own and their families’ protection. Almost none of these people will give in their guns to authorities without resistance. The question to you: how many American lives are you personally willing to sacrifice in order to achieve your dream of a peaceful society?

      • Bill

        Well, thats good for you Jeff that you have no guns and do not ever need any. So, mind your own business and don’t tell me that I don’t need any or that I am not smart enough in your view to handle the guns that I have.

        That is like me telling you that you should not drive a car because you might drink and drive

      • JC

        gee Jeff, why would you think that every business everywhere is a gun free zone?
        Not every business owner is an idiot! :)

      • Vin Price

        In Virginia too it is legal to carry anywhere in the state except court or schools (poor kids) and businesses can opt for a gun free site if they wish. I simply don’t frequent those stores where I can’t carry

  • Sarah Hearn-vonfoerster

    To LAIDBACKREBEL:
    Sir, the Rothchilds are, and always have been, Jewish. The ILLUMINATI are Roman Catholic. You must be listening to Fox News again, which explains the confusion.

    • JC

      That’s interesting.
      Most of the more powerful Banking families (cults) are Zionist as opposed to main stream Jewish. But your allusion to the Illuminati being Roam Catholic is intriguing. Can you post any evidence about that? Where did you come by that information?

    • Captain America

      Sarah, there you go again spouting-off with your lil fingers on the keyboard, without any references. I’m starting to see a trend with you. There is a reason people don’t quote what they read on the internet, because anyone can say anything, and it is up to us more educated to get proof of the “facts” certain segments of our society decide to “publish” for all to “know”. In the future, please use some sort of reference for the “facts” that we are all supposed to already “know”. Thanks in advance.

    • JeffH
      • JeffH

        ROTHSCHILD ZIONISM
        http://unaxe.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/why-and-how-the-rothschilds-created-zionism-took-over-palestine-and-more/
        But to understand the financial crisis, 9/11 and so much more, it must be spoken constantly. As we begin a new year, amid ever-gathering global tyranny, this information is vital for everyone to know.

      • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

        Heya JeffH!

        Yep…I’ve seen that one. Not to sure really about David Icke but he does say some of the right things. This said…so does Alex Jones & I have enough evidence about him accumulated to prove he’s a fear mongering liar who gives us about 80-90% of the truth only to scew the last bit to encourage public opinion into a predetermined mentality. William Cooper did a pretty good job revealing him before they silenced Cooper & made him into one of our martyrs like Jon Todd.

        I also fear that Chris Kyle was silenced as well due to what he knew & his legal case regarding Jesse Ventura (James Janos). I believe he would have exposed Ventura for the anti-american statements he said at McP’s Bar one night which made Chris Kyle deck him…which apparently Ventura is trying to say that it never happened. So what did happen? I believe Chris punched him. As a former Navy SEAL I’m telling you I believe Chris punched him.

        What does this mean? Well…Ventura is a buddy with Alex Jones. Alex supports him & if Ventura damages his credibility then so is Alex’s credibility damaged. I think “they” were protecting their credibility as being a leading “patriotic” source for alternative news & such. Heck, has anyone ever heard Jones speaking about the Knights of Malta, or the Knights of Columbus or the USS Liberty or the 5 dancing Isrealies (not sure about that one)…etc.

        Alex & Ventura I believe work for the NWO as double agents. That’s my belief at least. I hated finding this out & I resisted the information for some time…but it does indeed seem to add up. Look into William “Bill” Coopers utube posts about Alex Jones & what he thought of him.

        Also, Ventura has led a life trying to pursue being a celebrity. Along the way during his wrestling years he played the villian & mastered it. He professes to being a SEAL but in truth he’s a Frogman. There is a great deal of honor by being a frogman but there is no honor in standing on the valor of fallen soldiers who actually saw live action & even died from it. Jesse (Janos) has lost credibility with me where once I admired him & Alex Jones both.

        Oh what a tangled web is weaved.

        God Bless ya, JeffH & I hope to chat with you another time. Really enjoyed this one, Bob L!

  • Progressives-R-Cancer

    All active and retired military and LEOs should join The Oathkeepers (www.oathkeepers.org) who believe we should keep our sworn oaths to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic. The first of ten orders they refuse to ever obey is to participate in the confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens.

  • Carol

    Our elected officals are so full of hot air they say NOTHING at all and sadly that is a fact.

  • Bill

    America and most of the world are under the control of a sociopathic criminal class. They control the media, the courts, the military industrial complex, the intelligence communities, banking industry and the entertainment-propaganda industries. Our elected officials, I imagine get a rude awakening once they take office and begin to see how things are run. If they comply, they will make a very tidy living. If they are particularly useful (ruthless) they will get rich beyond their wildest dreams. If they want to buck the system they will be personally destroyed or murdered. (Think JFK, RFK, Malcom X).

    The elected criminals use a strategy of domination and subjugation called the dialectic.
    Thesis vs anti-thesis = synthesis. They control both sides of any particular issue and direct the outcome. Men vs women, black vs white, conservatives vs liberals, labor vs management, Bolsheviks vs Czarists, Fox vs CNN. It divides the people and keeps them pissed off. Divided people are easily conquered. Been using it with deadly consequences for centuries.

    The point I am trying to make is, while it’s a nice letter and makes me feel good to vent, it will fall on deaf ears. We are in the end game here, friends. They are wearing us out. If we don’t hand over the guns (and I’m not saying we should) they will destroy the economy and use chaos and anarchy to do the thinning out, then Marshall law and whatever else from there.

    I know in my heart that behind this is a juggernaut of a spiritual warfare. It is hell-bent on destroying humanity or at least de-humanizing it to enslave it. I believe if there is to be any deliverance it is to be from God, not the political realm. We Americans have been flying in the face of God for a long time. We have become arrogant, thankless, immoral and personally corrupt. Our deliverance and salvation lie in personal and national repentance. But it must begin with the individual.

    2 Chronicles 7:14

    If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

    For all who have ears to hear.

    • FreedomFighter

      Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. We are the resistance

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • Jeff

        Tyranny like Obamacare? Desegregation? Gay marriage? Social Security? Who gets to decide when a political decision you dislike constitutes tyranny? Rush? Sean? Michael Savage?

      • David Jepson

        My dear Jeff, you write, “Tyranny like Obamacare? Desegregation? Gay marriage? Social Security? Who gets to decide when a political decision you dislike constitutes tyranny? Rush? Sean? Michael Savage?’

        No not really. But tyranny like, forcing the Catholic church to provide abortion pills which is against their belief which by the way is the 1ST Amendment. Tyranny like telling preachers what they can or cannot preach. The old “hate speech” thing about the sin of homosexuality. Tyranny like drones overhead watching our every move. Tyranny like monitoring our email, or phones, tyranny like vans that can see through our houses so they can see us, tyranny like like arresting you and holding you on no charges thanks to the 2012 NDAA signed by Heir Obama. Tyranny like sexual assaults taking place against little children at our airports, tyranny like the TSA setting up roadblocks on highways that are not near airports or the border. Tyranny like Heir Obama trying to rule his subjects by way of Executive orders. Why don’t you reach down, and grab a pair, act like a free man instead of having Heir Obama come over to your house every morning just to wipe your backside! MOLON LABE!!!

      • GALT

        Doesn’t ABSOLUTE POWER invite ABSOLUTE TYRANNY?

        Aren’t you simply serving, what you imagine to be, the more POWERFUL TYRANT?

        Sadly, the tragedy of believing in imaginary TYRANTS, is that they are never
        around when you need them.

      • FreedomFighter

        I had Elvis read your post:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWvAi5opqTA&feature=fvst

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Captain America

        Jeff, you are a troll, but let’s use that to our advantage here. You say, “Tyranny like Obamacare? Desegregation? Gay marriage? Social Security? Who gets to decide when a political decision you dislike constitutes tyranny? Rush? Sean? Michael Savage?”

        REAL-AMERICANS decide in a popular vote, not Obama in a Executive Order type of way.

        To break down your ridiculous argument specifically, let’s look at each component you stated in situ:

        Desegregation was THE WORST THING to happen to Public Education. Look at the facts: teachers can no longer teach properly; high school standardized test scores are lower each year, when compared to other countries; graduation rates are pathetic, especially among blacks and hispanics, but also declining for whites; American history has been completely “rewritten” to exclude American Exceptionalism and now include American guilt for success; mass school shootings are more frequent; and everyone gets an “A” mentality in grade schools across America. None of those things would have happened if schools were still segregated and most probably blacks and hispanics would be getting better education, because it would be geared more towards them, which is the #1 complaint from most professorial blacks.

        Obamacare was publicly unpopular, by a large margin, yet forced on everyone against our will; it is a novel in volume, thicker than The Bible and more convoluted; it costs the USA more money for healthcare each year, not less, as it was claimed before voted-on; no one even read the Bill, including Nancy Pelosi, who told people it had to pass to see what was in it; Doctors are no longer in control of patient’s best interests, now a bureaucrat is; and life expectancy is now based on money, versus personal interest.

        Gay marriage is a national disgrace, as traditional marriage is founded on the very principles that gays do not subscribe, namely the religious underpinnings of Christianity; gays only want to be “married” because it affords them the Rights of a man-and-woman in Holy matrimony, not because they actually believe in Monogamy; gay marriage is also vastly unpopular publicly and just because some news network says different does not make it so.

        Social Security is a dry box that will not be there for most of those that put money into it their entire lives; SS has been given out to Illegal-aliens and other foreigners that did not put into it their lives; it has been stolen from and completely looted for “other reasons” and was the plan all along.

        So, Jeff…what do you have now??

        • Jeff

          So we should vote on each issue? Like direct democracy in Athens? How about for the Iraq War? Obamacare is not so unpopular at all. It’s around 50/50 depending how the question is asked and will get more popular as repeal will mean taking away gains people realize. The biggest mistake Obama made with it was having its benefits phase in too slowly. You are clearly an old-time right winger who hated FDR (or your father did), so you’ve always hated social security. But it’s massively popular, so unless you’re around other right wing fossils, I wouldn’t recommend talking too much.

      • JC

        Jeff says:
        January 14, 2013 at 9:21 am
        Tyranny like Obamacare? Desegregation? Gay marriage? Social Security? Who gets to decide when a political decision you dislike constitutes tyranny? Rush? Sean? Michael Savage?
        ____________________________________________________________________

        Obamacare and Social Security are forced on us. Ergo: Tyranny.
        Gay marriage (seems an important point for you)…really, who cares?
        Desegregation…as natural as any other form of evolution.

        I’ll decide for myself what Constitutes Tyranny. And it usually comes from Idiots like you trying to save the world, “For the Greater Good”…just like the communists did.

      • Bob666

        “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. We are the resistance”

        Yo Freedom, whos god? yours or mine? ther just might be a differance.

        • http://naver samurai

          What do you mean by what God? A person who asks that has no idea of our Christian founding and is no patriot. FOR GOD AND COUNTYRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

          You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out. Remember, differences is what keeps us divided.

          “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is One Nation Under God.”

          George H. W. Bush

    • freedom care

      Well said.

  • Brad n TX

    Excellent letter to the out of control idiots we have elected protect us. Or have we lost our own minds to entrust such psychopaths to protect us from such psychopaths?

  • MikeO48

    There is a simple solution to the failed leadership in our federal government and at state and local levels all across this great land. That is to vote the failures out of office. Unfortunately our society is so polarized that the facist liberal left is growing in sgtrength and control, and unless freedom loving citizens in this country rally soon, we will lose our freedoms to the facist liberal left.

  • http://www.davidlerickson.com David

    This article started out great, then degenerated into a bias diatribe, throwing statistics around that may be accurate, but so much was left out as to render these statistics useless.

    Reasonable regulations on weapons, such as closing the gun show loophole, banning military grade weapons and large bullet clips does not equate to a British type confiscation of all guns. The fear being generated by gun nuts and pseudo-conservative babbling heads who make their living giving listeners their daily adrenaline fix, is misplaced and damaging to the integrity of America.

    The NRA stays in business because they’ve become a mouthpiece for gun extremists, weapons manufacturers and gun sellers. The NRA membership and gun sales spike whenever any politician makes a move to legislate any limits at all. The leadership of the NRA has taken it upon itself to prevent ANY changes whatsoever because they’ve been taken over by a radical fringe that loves wielding power. They wield this power through political terrorism, not by supporting reasonable positions, but by convincing politicians that if they don’t bend to the NRA’s will, their membership will vote them out of office

    They also have been quite successful with the, ‘black UN helicopters with storm trooper thugs coming to take our guns’ lie. Stupid people buy their lies and responsible gun owners just look away. In fact, the stated position of the NRA leadership is that citizens should have the right to own machine guns.

    Let us not all get stupid over this.

    • redhawk

      “Let’s not get stupid over this.”

      David, stupid is already upon us. How smart is it that the Fed prints money to pay depts that the congress makes because they can’t live within their means? The effects of such a Fiat monetary system has only 1 logical conclusion. Hyper inflation and bankrupcy. Then, a fiscal cliff story is made up to justify raising taxes in 1% of the ultra-rich, yet nearly 80% of wage earners have a smaller net paycheck due solely due to government withholdings. Yes, I AM making a case for taxation without proper representation.Those so called “representatives are NOT looking out after “we the peoples” best interests. When passing one single law that’s over 950 pages long (in only a few day) you cannot tell me that even the legal minded legislators understand all of what it says or puports to do. The Obamacare legislation was even worse.
      Let’s look at another scenario. Government is broke so it passes tax hikes on everyone across the board, raising their taxes to 50% of their income with no spending cuts. Public outcry ensues and we’re told that’s the way it is, employers that do not comply will be fined by the IRS. Soon enough people are so agrivated they demand action but none is forth coming. The people say either lower our taxes to the point we can afford to live or face rebellion. Rebellion comes. Now YOU Dave are only able to face the paid enforcers of the law with a .22 single shot or 12 gage with while the other side has armored vehicfles with semiautomatic side arms and fully automatic issue weapons & turret guns up to 30 mm beside supporting artillery & air cover if they want or feel theu need it. Now THAT’s stupid but is exactly what will pervail if we can”t effectively respond to forceful measures. At that point, “we the people” are now subjects. This kind of thing has happened ofgten enough you won’t have to read far to find it. So long as a individual is law abiding why not be able to posess whatever her wants and be trained in their use? And you whine about the NRA. That organization, because of its more than 6 MILLION members, is able to stand as one of lone protectors of our Constitution and individual freedoms. Sara Brady, president of Handgun Control, Inc., has overtly stated not only her desire to confiscate all handguns but every single in the US. Why? Most would say because her husband was shot with one, but that’s only a small part of the truch that came out of her own mouth. It’s to create a socialistic, utopiansociety that private ownership of guns stands squarely in opposition to. I don’t trust government that far and never will. There are way too many examples in history of governments murdering their own people to get whatever they want. We are different. THIS IS AMERICA!

    • DavdL

      I share many of your views here, David. We need to go after illegal guns as the Mayors Against Illegal Guns are arguing. Closing loop holes at gun shows, more effective and universal background checks, registering all guns sold and re-sold privately, improving our mental health services to our fellow citizens, educating better on safety procedures for storing guns in the home (trigger locks, etc) are some important steps to be taken. This is not, unlike the NRA for self-serving reasons would have us believe, about the 2nd Amendment and gun grabbing. Who among us wouldn’t agree with taking a gun away from a criminal? It’s about reasonable and responsible community safety measures as we exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “We need to go after illegal guns as the Mayors Against Illegal Guns are arguing.”

        The gun in and of itself is not illegal it is its use and posession that MIGHT be considered illegal.

        “…registering all guns sold and re-sold privately…”

        Registering a gun has nothing to do with taking guns away from criminals. It is ONLY a way for the government to know who has guns so they know where to look when they decide to confiscate them.

    • David Jepson

      Dang, the liberal left have taken your brain housing group and replaced it with Obama talk. What part about ” shall not be infringed” do you not understand. First, lets take semi auto rifles away from Americans. Next, let us outlaw magazines that hold more than 10 rounds because after all, you do not need 10 rounds to kill a deer. When the government takes steps to limit the 2nd Amendment we have tyranny. Next step is to “register” them, then fingerprint everyone who owns a gun. Next step is to just come over to your house and take them. Why do I need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Because a magazine that holds less than 10 rounds restricts my 2nd Amendment right. It makes it less likely that I would be able to defend myself against an overly aggressive government. You know what, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says I have a right to hunt and fish therefore I can have the permission of the government to own a shotgun, as long as it holds only 3 rounds. ” The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be INFRINGED” I don’t need the governments permission to own a rifle. The Constitution tells me what I can do, as well as the government. It is about time the government reads it. If you don’t want a weapon then don’t buy one, but how dare you to attempt to restrict my rights given to me by and through the blood of patriots!

    • Vin Price

      I’ll only address one point of your comment. Here in Virginia, there is no such thing as a ‘gun show loophole’. This is a fabrication of thre gun grabbers. Every gun sold by any dealer goes to someone who has to face the same instant check by the state as they would if they go to any gun store. True, individuals can and do sell direct to each other, but this is just the same as that private individual putting a classified in the local paper. BTW, people used to carry Federal Firearms Licenses to make small trafdes until the feds made it very difficult to deal with them.

    • Vicki

      David says:
      “Reasonable regulations on weapons, such as closing the gun show loophole, banning military grade weapons and large bullet clips does not equate to a British type confiscation of all guns.”

      There is no possible reasonable regulation on firearms. Any and all regulations are in violation of the Constitution. ~300 MILLION Americans did NOT misuse a gun. ~250 MILLION guns were not mis used. ~50 MILLION gun owners did not misuse their guns.

      The Constitution solved the problem of people misusing guns over 200 YEARS AGO. Use it.

      We are done giving up our GOD given rights. STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

  • carol814

    Our elected officials are so full of hot air that they NOTHING at all and sadly that is a fact!!!

  • mike

    Odumba wants his medical care, but did they ever tell you from all the governments nuclear testing: Scientists have studied survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to understand the short-term and long-term effects of nuclear explosions on human health. Radiation and radioactive fallout affect those cells in the body that actively divide (hair, intestine, bone marrow, reproductive organs). Some of the resulting health conditions include:
    •Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea
    •Cataracts
    •Hair loss
    •Loss of blood cells
    These conditions often increase the risk of leukemia, cancer, infertility and birth defects
    Oh dont get me started on the Federal Reserve who fart money out of thin air and charge our own Government Interest on money that is not worth spit.

    • Financially Insecure John

      Odumba wants his medical care, but did they ever tell you from all the governments nuclear testing: Scientists have studied survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to understand the short-term and long-term effects of nuclear explosions on human health.

      Really?

  • Old Henry

    Regarding any gun ban(s) that may come down “from on high: On Saturday I read The Daily Jot, http://www.dailyjot.com, which discussed these unconstitutional laws. In the article the author, Bill Wilson, suggested that we all find out exactly where our county sheriffs stand. Being the “king of the hill” in each county / parish they can stop ANY federal agent from enforcing these unconstitutional laws.

    In the article he inserted a letter from a woman that can be used as a “template” to your sheriff. You can send it to your local paper, or print copies, have your friends / neighbors sign it and then send it to your county sheriff.

    Here it is:

    Dear Sheriff [Name],

    As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in [Name of County] County your oath of office is to preserve, protect and defend the local, state, and/or federal Constitution. I/We would like to know if you will honor your oath by refusing to enforce Federal rules, regulations and directives that violate the Constitution of the United States.

    As you are aware, the federal government is considering ways to attack the right to bear arms, in particular, the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment. This would suppress the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns and protect their person and families. It is fact that in areas where the strictest gun control measures are implemented, crime and gun-related deaths rise and your job is made even more difficult.

    As the electorate, the people of [Name of County] County are your employer and we expect you to represent our Constitutional rights in the face of an overreaching federal government. I/We would like to know if you are given an order that violates the Constitution, will you honor your oath or will you do as directed by the President of the United States.

    Sincerely,
    [Your name or Many Signatures]

  • JonZ

    Very well said, Bob. Very well said!

  • ray

    Y’all recon ol’ Bob could have speculated that the day may come when we need the high capacity firearms to defend the country from an invasion? Certainly not much defense against heavy armament but the door to door clean up would be a problem for the invaders. But, I guess I’ve drifted off topic.

    • Vin Price

      Well, you may have drifted offf on a tangent but you shoul be aware that there exist treaties already that provide for bringing foreign troops in to quell ‘unrest’.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        there are treaties, but that does not make those treaties legal here. Let’s see what the requirements are for Treaties, like those we have with the UN.

        Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” <– 'Constitutional prcesses', so that mens if a treaty is not in "pursuance thereof" (following) the US Constituton it is NOT legal here.

        All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

        Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. <— so they do have to comply with the US Constitution

        November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows: "The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide." (caps are mine)

        Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. <— again, if a treaty does not follow the US Constitution it is not legal.

        Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

        The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919.

        Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

        United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

        In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

        In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
        “No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

        U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…” (Federalist 69)

        Basically those troops would be/are invading the USA since those treaties are illegal.

        • Vin Price

          I agree with your conclusion. My personal opinion is that such military should be given one chance to leave quietly, since they are there by invitation – even if an illegal invitation – and if they don’t it’s open season! And since I’m sure there will be comments saying we couldn’t roust them I’ll point out Admiral Yamamoto’s comment on invading the continental US. Too paraphrase; it would be a disaster and an invading army would find a gun behind every blade of grass. Only question is how many of the holders of those guns will stand and be counted.

  • http://exodus-consulting.com Thomas

    Bob, can we borrow your text (with proper attribution) so we can write our Congresscritters directly?

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Thomas,

      Yes.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • r b

    when you agreed to restrictions that allowed an american to have their rights taken, then you agreed to have your rights taken.
    i have read the 2nd amendment numerous times. i can not find any exceptions in it.
    some of you support current restrictions to the 2nd.
    how can you complain now.

  • Bob

    It’s not we the people no more . If the people don’t stand up it will be to late.its as simple as that

  • DaveH

    Yay, Bob Livingston.
    Well done.

  • nc

    Mr. Livingston, the drafters saw fit to link gun possession with a “militia”. What is you definition of a militia? Must it be organized and recognized by the government or is it any group of armed citizens who believe they are acting in accordance with the Constitution? Just because they have arms and are a like minded group can they walk into any mayor’s office and announce their “new laws” for the village AND WHO THE LOCAL TYRANTS ARE THEY ARE GOING TO DEFEND US AGAINST.

    • Jeff

      According to Bob’s definition of well regulated. I’m sure the KKK qualified. If the FBI disarmed the KKK because they were murderous, racist thugs (minor detail), did they violate the 2nd Amendment? Notice the 2nd Amendment contains no exceptions. No felon exception, no terrorist exception. But is it reasonable to read any part of the Constitution without an implied “reasonableness” clause. After all, it’s a Constitution, not a suicide note.

      • FreedomFighter

        Hateful Hate Haters of the Left

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgXjnHeFU44&feature=fvsr

        Your fear is not my mine, may your chains of slavery rest lightly and your master kind, but I dont think so.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Bob W.

        Jeff, tyhe militia and the right to keep and bear arm are 2 different things. The need for a militia ( a regulated group of fighters under the controll of the individual ststes) is why the right to keep and bear arms ( a natural right, not given by the government, but by God to EVERY man) is enumerated by the 2nd amendment. A large group, the entire citizenry, is where the Militia comes from, therefore the right to self defence and the bearing of arms shall not be infringed.(nibbled at around the edges) The people in the second amendment is the same people in the 1st amendment. EVERYONE.!!

        • Jeff

          “Jeff, tyhe militia and the right to keep and bear arm are 2 different things. The need for a militia ( a regulated group of fighters under the controll of the individual ststes) is why the right to keep and bear arms ( a natural right, not given by the government, but by God to EVERY man) is enumerated by the 2nd amendment. A large group, the entire citizenry, is where the Militia comes from, therefore the right to self defence and the bearing of arms shall not be infringed.(nibbled at around the edges) The people in the second amendment is the same people in the 1st amendment. EVERYONE.!!”

          Bob L:

          In case you were wondering, here’s your non sequitur.

      • Captain America

        Jeff, you should go read some history, and you will see the KKK was Democratic is political nature; not that I like the Republicans any more than the Democrats. Also, it was the Republicans that fought to end slavery against the Democrats. Again, history…darned stuff just won’t go away Bob, will it?!

        • Jeff

          Captain:

          I never said Democrat and Republican; I used Progressive and Conservative. Until the late 60s, nobody was more racist and reactionary than the Southern Democrats. They were an appendage to the Northern Democrats who were largely more liberal. Many Norther Republicans were moderate, even liberal, and it was Northern Democrats and Republicans working together who passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in the mid-60s. LBJ knew he had handed the South to the Republicans for at least a generation. Within a few years of the passage of those Acts, all the Southern Democrats switched to the Republicans. They had been an embarrassment to the Democrats, but they became the base of the Republican Party and they still are. Same people, same policies, different party label. So, when you see a reference to the Old Southern Democrats, think Republican base now.

      • Vicki

        The Constitution provided the method to deal with any misuse of any tool (including hands and feet). That method worked fine to control the misuse by members of the KKK.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          What makes you think they “disarmed the KKK “? the ones that were diarmed were the ones caught doing criminal acts. There are still KKK who are armed. Just like there are Masons who are armed, or lawyers.

          It is individuals that do criminal acts that are disarmed, no matter what group they belong in.

          • Jeff

            It was a hypothetical question.

  • carol814

    This is what I meant to say:

    Our elected officicals are so full of hot air that they say NOTHING at all and sadly that is a fact!!!

    Once they are elected everything they promice is really empty because all they wanted was to get into office and knew exactly what to say and how to say it and we as idiots believed them that is also sad but true.

  • Ann

    The question to Bob: in your opinion, how many Congress members know about your letter and how many of them will read it? Your letter has nothing new for the people of America who care about the future of this country. How do you think this letter can make congressmen who care only about their own interests to worry about their positions?

  • charlie

    Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

  • Paul

    What a fantastic article. Thank you for helping break the ‘left – right paradigm’ and calling it like it truly is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sebastiananthony.ilacqua Sebastian Anthony Ilacqua

    Great article and fine sentiment. unfortunately our “representatives” do not consider themselves that – representing us. They have now abused their positions and created an elite, aristocratic class reminiscent of the situation we eventually expunged from our society in 1776. After centuries of oppression, we had finally created a classless society in which equality was the rule. Not so much. We now have a class known as “government” that has figured out that they can extract, by force, almost unlimited funds from the “working class” (serfs) to augment their lavish benefits and exorbitant lifestyles. At the same time they have recategorized our pension fund (social security) as discretionary, entitlement funds that can be squandered for purposes of their choosing – not ours. Now they argue that it is us who must take the financial hit for their fiscal corruption and insanity. I say all federal pensions should be reduced by half to make them more equitable and all representatives’ pensions should be eliminated until we get out of debt. Secondly, all elected officials must be replaced in the next election. I know you really like your representative, but he/she is not doing you any service. Just as a matter of trying to get us back on course, we need to clean “house” (and senate) and send the message that, if our you do not represent the American people’s best interests, you will be out of a job…

  • John

    Sarah, bringing a knife to a gunfight is a terrible idea, and bringing a taser along to defend against either a gun or a knife is worse. I pray you are never threatened but if you are you should know that preparation, awareness, good training and a gun in good repair that is readily available all are required to protect you and your loved ones. I wish you good luck and hope you never need it. Semper Fi! John

  • Jeff

    Is a “troll” anyone who dares to say something sensible on a right wing blog?

    • FreedomFighter

      There are over twenty-five million veterans in the United States — among them many Walt Kowalskis — and most of them are gun owners. Some of them remember the horrors of the concentration camps and of communism. Others are from the Vietnam era and remember what awaited them when they came home. They see John Kerry, the same man who threw his medals over the White House fence and was photographed with Jane Fonda and the North Vietnamese, nominated as secretary of state. They remember. ObamaCare, where you get painkillers instead of treatment because you are old? They have heard this. They have been spat at and vilified before, and now, with time running out for them, and the America that they knew seemingly fading away, many will say, “At one time, I was asked to write a check to my country for up to and including my life. Do I need to do it again?

      Only if we have to.

      Dangerous Old Men
      http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/dangerous_old_men.html#ixzz2HssDX4oD

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • Jeff

        Where is it written that to be a hero one has to zip his mouth about the most insane war his country ever fought? You seem to think it’s just fine to criticize the government as long as you don’t like the Government. What is the difference? Kerry fought and bled in Viet Nam. He realized before some others what a fools errand that war was and he so testified before Congress. That is real patriotism, not some stupid “Love It or Leave It” bumper sticker on your pickup truck adorned with a gun rack and a Confederate flag.

      • Captain America

        I’m with you FreedomFighter, shoulder-to-shoulder, come what may. Hooah

    • Robert

      I think if the hole country just did not show up fore work they would figure out who they work for and so would big buissnes .

    • Bob W.

      A “troll” asking for a definition of the word troll.

    • Robert

      It’s beyond repair new that cence the beginning of class action law suits when they gave big business option to pay back pennies on the dollar

    • Captain America

      No Jeff, YOU are a troll. You are on a website that you obviously disagree. You post constantly against everyone and find issue at every turn, where your commentary does not even stand-up with the slightest test. THAT is the definition of a troll “Jeff the Troll”.

    • Bill

      But we have not heard anything sensible from you Jeff
      Our differences are obvious; You favor poverty and tyranny, we favor freedom and prosperity

      • Jeff

        Really? Through tax cuts and deregulation? By denying science? If we left the Red States to their own devices, where would they be? Low taxes, no government regulation, driving huge polluting trucks, and everybody carrying a gun everywhere. Sounds lovely. No solar panels, of course. Keep the technology from the 1950s. If it was good enough for Ike . . .

    • Robert

      Not worried about fair background checks are they going to be fair or will a minor traffic offences count with government when they rite laws 200 Paige’s win you and your wife had a spat win you was a minor and got cought with a pipe

  • Kim

    There is absolutely no reason for the private person to have control of, own, borrow, steal a semi automatic high capacity rifle or the magazines that feed them. None. I strongly believe assault weapons should be controlled.

    • redhawk

      Kim, May the chains of your taskmasters lay just as heavily are you are allowing them to be forged. Why don’t you move to Europe…… say Greece? THIS IS AMERICA!

    • libertarian58

      The biggest reason of all is the patently obviously one that nearly all liberals REFUSE to see. It is for the peoples’ defense against tyrannical government. In you think we don’t have that, read THIS. http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/emer.html#license

      • Jeff

        Define the tyranny. Were Jim Crow laws the tyranny or was the Federal Government’s forcing desegregation the tyranny? Were environmental laws tyranny? Or is tyranny reserved for things like the internment of the Japanese during the War? Sometimes you libertarians talk like everything government does is by definition tyrannical. That’s just crazy talk.

      • JC

        Jeff, did you just get to this planet or are you just too young and naieve to see the destruction of American freedom and liberty?
        We’ve had quite a few administrations in a row destroying our way of life and it’s coming to a head. There is NO WAY patriots are going to register or give up their guns at this point in history…No way!

    • Bill

      No, Kim
      Liberals should be controlled. They have a bad habit of stealing; your rights, your guns, your money, your freedoms

      • JC

        Exactly. Liberalism has become a nasty mental disease.

      • Captain America

        Liberalism/Progressivism is a disease, and Libertarianism/Freedom is the cure!

    • Captain America

      Kim, you can feel however you want, but LEAVE ME AND MINE ALONE! I do not want, or need, your help in much of anything. I am able to stand on my own, come Hell or high water. Can you say the same, or do you need to ask permission from Obama to speak?

      • Jeff

        Captain:

        Watch this interview with Colin Powell. He lays it on the line about the rightward shift in the Republican Party and the racism it still harbors.

      • Bill

        Jeff
        You are getting predictable. For lack of intelligent argument, throw in the race card.
        We could write your posts for you. Are you sure you are not one of Flashy’s boys?

      • CZ52

        Bill, he sounds more and more like Flashy doesn’t he. Some of his posts I read earlier sounded like Flashy had written them.

      • Steve

        How can any man state he “knows” what another man is thinking (Colin Powell)? Unless you are judging by one’s actions alone, the keys to a man’s thoughts are only held by the man thinking. Along that same line, was it not the Republicans who brought Colin Powell into the fold? Is he anywhere in the Democratic platform? Explain your “point” again, as I do not think you actually have one.

  • Kent

    There is only one problem with this open letter. It is too long for any of our people in Congress to read it, with their attention deficit disorder.

    • Bill

      That is a good one, Kent
      Attention Deficit Disorder

  • Jack Gallant

    Amen brother. As a Vietnam era veteran, I totaly agree with your commentary/letter to members of Congress. I would add however, politicians are probably the most hypocritical of any group, as they have protection from assault and violence, either by armed guards, or by carrying their own guns, but, as is the case with their preferential health care and government benefits, deem us “subjects” not worthy of the same privileges.

  • Charles

    If my memory is correct the militia is everyone. The draft is calling the militia. The standing army and it’s little buddy the National guard are a sbsection of the militia (jst as was the king’s militia, or the state militia, or the city militia. And yes any group can call itself a milita, march into the local chief officials office and give its orders (as the federal government, in effect does now) but if you have a well regulated (as oppposed to well controlled) militia that would be a dumb thing to do (check on John Browns’ actions way back when the nation was young). They might hod them until the “accepted officials” arrive.
    Tyranny is telling me I must do something that violates an equality of rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of desires (please note the word equality-everyone has the same rights, they don’t end at our noses but at the reach of our individual rights).

  • steve

    unfortunetly all of government today is control by big business and the almighty dollar. just look at how much was spent on the pres election. always follow the money

  • Bill

    TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT THIS LETTER SEND IT BOTH ELECTRONICALLY AND IN PAPER!!!!

    I MEAN PRINT IT, PAY FOR THE POSTAGE STAMP, FIND THE ADDRESS FOR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, AND SEND THEM.

    INFACT PRINT 500 COPIES AND TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME.

    PAPER IS CHEAP, LIBERTY COMES AT A COST.

    More freedom is lost thru negligence than thru armed conflict.

  • thefiledocument

    I have a revalation for you people. The brown shrits of America will not be the TSA or any other goverment accosiated organization.

    It will be the mulsim brotherhood. Just wait untill they attack Iran you will see their violent reaction, infact you can go on youtube and watch their violent protests here in America. The folks in the goverment want you defencless so they can convert you or kill you. Look what they did in Libya, they were cutting peoples heads off like animals and throwing them in trenches for weeks and the western media didn’t report on this.

    • http://www.facebook.com/sebastiananthony.ilacqua Sebastian Anthony Ilacqua

      Your comment dovetails nicely with the spirit of this letter since many muslim brotherhood officials have found their way into our government and have access to the white house.

  • thefiledocument

    This is a good letter.

  • An honest man

    What we need is a mass demonstration of lawful weapon owners to show these gun grabbers that we mean to protect our right to own a firearm The gun grabbers went to Wall Mart to protest their sale of weapons that they call assault weapons.We need to have a counter demonstration to support sporting stores like Wall Mart that sell lawful firearms without being harassed by a bunch of anti gun nuts. A show of support for our second amendment rights is needed to let these people know that we are serious and we mean to protect that right. Once these gun grabbers get their foot in the door they will never stop until they destroy our right to own or purchase a firearm.They mean to impose their will on the masses in order to meet their agenda and that is to remove all weapons from the people A lawful firearm owner poses no threat to anyone and should never be persecuted for the lawless criminal that commits a crime with a unregistered weapon. If they succeed in there efforts to restrict certain types of weapons the next step will be weapon confiscation. The hysteria caused by the news media and anti gun politicians always seem to enrage people into thinking that the weapon is the problem when it is the deranged person that should be held responsible for their actions. If these anti gun grabbers would remove their thumbs from their butt and give their brains some oxygen then they would think twice about always blaming the weapon.

  • libertarian58

    http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/emer.html#license

    Here is why we are in the present situation. . . EVERYONE needs to understand all of this

  • http://MikeW Mike Willemsen

    I am not worried about the neighbors who have guns for hunting, self-defense, or target shooting. But those who fantasize revolution concern me. Many apparently contemplate using their weapons to fight the government, and, presumably, those fellow citizens who support the government. This group will probably include me, since I do not believe in violent, extraconstitutional means of changing government policy.
    The Second Amendment notwithstanding, there is no constitutional right of revolution. If you want to change government policy, win an election; if you want to change the structure of government, amend the constitution. But the fact that you and your friends believe a constitutionally elected government is repressive gives you no right to violent resistence.
    Fortunately, those who threatened rebellion if Obama got reelected seem to have reconsidered. Instead, it seems they long for catastrophe: hyperinflation , or hyperdepression. famine, foreign occupation, midnight raids seizing guns, etc. — anything that will turn the majority to their cause. The predictions continue year after year, they do not come true, and life goes on.
    .

    • FreedomFighter

      Never read Obama care, nor the NDAA, seen the FEMA camps, watched the training vids of the military siezing guns, or have you ever read history?

      start here

      Death by “Gun Control”
      http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

      60 million dead after registration and cofiscation, thats 60 million reasons you are wrong.

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • Vicki

        Might be good to point out that all the actions were “legal” by the Constitution of that particular Republic.

    • Dennis48e

      “Fortunately, those who threatened rebellion if Obama got reelected seem to have reconsidered.”

      I have seen very few if any actual threats to rebell. I have however seen many statements to the effect people expect events to result in rioting and a rebellion and they want to be prepared. There is a BIG difference in being prepared for something and activly promoting something. In fact your argument is akin to saying preppers are trying to cause Yellowstone to erupt or the electric grid to go down from sunspot activity. It just ain’t happening.

    • JC

      Mike…I don’t believe we have a Constitutionally elected Government for starters.
      And I don’t believe our vote makes any difference at all.
      I do believe the Global Agenda towards a one world government is alive and well and living in the White House.
      I do believe that if these anti-gun idiots actually try and confiscate the guns of patriots it could well spark revolution…it did in 1776.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

    Dear Bob;
    Truer or more profound words were never spoken.
    Would that all gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters copy this letter and send it to the appropriate person.
    Unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears. The fix is in.
    Obama and his administration, which includes most of both houses and most of the judiciary and both parties of the ‘two party system’ have been bought, or are owned. This is a no-win situation for America and her Constitution.
    The plan IS to foment rebellion and revolution. Look at all the incredibly unbelievable laws that have been illegally and/or constitutionally passed. A lot of people will say these are the acts of stupid people, that they make no sense – NOT SO!
    The idea IS to cause an uprising so it can be quelled under some form of martial law, using foreign troops or domestic para-millitary forces.
    To go from covert NWO control to overt NWO control, naturally, there has to be some specific ‘event’ to allow that to happen. Armed insurrection – no matter that it’s correct or not – is that ‘event’. America has been forced into this position for a reason. The reason is the takeover of America, in no uncertain terms.
    Solutions…?
    You have a choice America, a very limited choice. Go along with the gun grab and other destructions of your unalienable rights and avoid a violent takeover – yeah, appeasement always works right?
    Or, clearly tell the ‘government’ what it can do with it’s fascist Obamachinations (as in Machiavellian Machinations) and go through the fire and hope to come out intact.
    On the down side is the fact that about half the people have sold themselves out to this evil agenda and/or are complacent, appathetic brain dead narcissists who will either work against you or be of no use or value at all. Also the system is pretty much entrenched and the dismantling of the Constitution and the dissolution of America and the American way of life has been going on for quite a while.
    On the plus side for America, is your Constitution as a base for rebuilding after the treasonous minions of fascism and the traitors have all been ‘dealt’ with. Then there’s the indominatable spirit of true patriots, this has been bred in the bone and is an important resource, then there is God! He is on your side…
    It’s time to pay the price for Liberty!!!

    • GALT

      Well if that’s the plan, ( inciting insurrection so that it can be responded to )
      it doesn’t seem to be working……

      The only “effect” that is in “evidence”, is a lot of talk about people willing
      to “die” to prevent confiscation….which will occur when they pry it from your
      ” warm recently dead hands. ” which is all very romantic in a “Red Dawn” ish
      kinda way………( did they include that scene in the re-make? ) and not
      particularly credible.

      But here is a question, how many of YOU ( patriots ) are willing to go to
      prison……or “risk” prison, to DEFEND your right? ( actually privilege, but
      why let FACTS intrude on all of this bluster. )

      Sadly, this action is in the form of “non violent, civil disobedience” which
      can be employed en mass, or a carefully orchestrated, in a chinese water
      torture kinda way, to overwhelm the “system”, you all seem “paranoid”
      about………” gun registration”.

      The law here requires that as a registered gun owner, you are required to
      report when weapons are stolen……..sssshhhhhh…….takes a bit of
      imagination to see the “effects” that this particular “crime wave” would
      have………….as well as the response to it……….if they catch on…..

      Still the “formalities” must be observed, paper work completed, data bases
      updated………( and in this situation YOU will not be the one “unprepared” )
      and it’s not like “law enforcement” can refuse to follow the process…….
      which opens up a lot of possibilities…….with regard to the “legal system”,
      and potential reaction that might take place………

      Granted it is not as romantic as the “imaginary death” you all profess to
      be waiting for………in fact there is no risk of death at all……..but there is
      RISK and OPPORTUNITY………because you do not have RIGHTS, and
      it is through the “legal system” that they were removed…….so now, you
      have a chance to educate yourself and test them all……not to mention
      educating your fellow citizens……..who knows, you might even figure out
      what DID actually happen to those common law and equity courts, as
      well as, the “jury nullification” that disappeared along with them…..and
      all your other RIGHTS.

      Yeah, I know, you don’t get to kill anybody, but look at it
      this way……at least you won’t be stuck with the possibility
      of being remembered for composing a ridiculous exit line,
      like Nathan Hale?

      Thus endeth, another fairy tale, relax and continue what you were
      doing…….or more accurately put, not doing!

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        “because you do not have RIGHTS, and it is through the “legal system” that they were removed”

        The thing about natural rights is that the legal system cannot remove them. They can write a law that says the sky is green, but it does not make it so. There will always be those who will give “lip service” and “agree” the sky is green if they think they will get something out of it or to appear “in”; etc.

        Some of our natural rights were listed in the Constitution to make sure that those temp workers and bureacrats knew exactly what they are never allowed to touch. They spent decades, DECADES, training children in schools differently about our government and their rights. Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I’ll put it below.

        There was still not enough people where they felt comfortable making a bigger moves so they started importing people (immigrants) from tyrant ran nations because that is what they KNOW. They do NOT understand the concept of individual rights as they grew up in a world much different then ours. They more easily accept that the ‘ruler’ of the government of the USA is a dictator, iinstead of a document being the government with people elected and assigned to carry out the duties it assigned each branch.

        Look up the EO’s in early 2009, where we not only imported them, we paid their flight, housing, and food.

        Preamble to the Bill of Rights

        Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
        THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
        RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
        ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
        Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

        Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        Amendment II: 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.

        Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

        Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

        Amendment VII: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

        Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

        Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        Art IV Sec 2, the 14th says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

  • Joaquin Rodriguez

    That was as comprehensive as anything I’ve read in a while.

  • Fred

    According to the FBI website statistics, violent crime rates and murder rates have DECREASED by 50% & 54% respectively since their highs in 1992.

    • Jeff

      Those rates are more about demographics than anything else. As the population ages, you have less violent crime pro rata.

      • Bob W.

        Jeff, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “Those rates are more about demographics than anything else.”

        And totally irrelevant. We are done being punished for the acts of a few. Use the powers provided in the Constitution to punish those who misuse guns and LEAVE THE 300 MILLION of us, who are INNOCENT, ALONE.

  • Heres lookin at you, kid…

    Please publish the names and addresses of the lead individuals of AND THEIR FAMILIES, of the employees of the newspaper which released and identified legal gun owners in NY and NJ. Thank you.

    • Bill

      I like your name, Here’s lookin at you, kid

  • Joe Miller

    Has everyone forgotten, there is NO law on the books that would have prevented Sandy Hook or some of the other gun crimes in the article. Why you ask simple, most of the guns used were legally purchased. In the case of sandy Hook the guns used were stolen from the mother who was also killed, she was the first victim, the only laws that were broken were Murder and Theft, No gun laws were broken, and Conn. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      There’s the Ten Commandments and God’s transcendental law that transcends any written law, and we’re ignoring them, and God’s role in the world’s happening. Laws create bondage while adherence to God’s laws gives us liberty. I’ve been in the gun business for over 50 years. You might know as the gun in Death Wish 111 “Wildey’s here”. People have to change inorder the situation to change.

      • Charlie

        T C A,,,
        Yeah,,, some have to change their mind and figure out there is more than John 3:16 to become a True Christian per The Book…. Baptism cannot be bypassed because of what Pete said at 1 Peter 3:21,,,””baptism now save you”””………. Meanwhile…………………………..
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

  • DAO

    Gun control is one of the crucial and necessary steps to achieve a dictatorship that is so avidly desired by the Progressive movement; aka the Democratic Party.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      Don’t be nice. They’re Involuntary socialist dedicated to the over through of our God fearing Republic. They use lies deceit and propaganda to get their way. You cannot reason with them. You must beat them.

      • Charlie

        T C A,,,
        Pray in Luke 19;27 and keep your guns loaded ,,,Pray in Matthew 6:9—13, and keep your guns loaded………. Meanwhile…………………
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

  • Einstein

    Clinton’s Gun Free Zone at Fort Hood caused the death of unarmed helpless miIitary personnel. Have democrats learned their less or do they wish to turn the whole USA in another Gun Free Fort Hood?

    • 45caliber

      Einstein:

      The politicians aren’t really worried about the armed criminals in the US. They have their own guns and armed guards and will not be giving them up. What they fear are armed citizens who don’t want to lose more of their rights and freedoms. It is important to them to “take care of us” regardless of whether we want them to do that or not. And they can’t do that as well as they wish to do as long as some of us have guns.

    • gunner

      They DO want to turn the country into a gun free Fort Hood – which, according to the Justice Department was an indicent of “workplace violence.” Ignorance is blliss.

  • Jeff

    Wild Bill:

    If you can formulate an intelligible question, I’ll do my best to answer it.

    • JeffH

      Can I play? Why is Barack H. Obama the president of the United States when the Constitution clearly states that the president must be a “natural born citizen”.

      The U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

      Obama does not qualify under the Constitution, Article II, Section 1 Natural Born Citizen clause, because his father was not a U.S. Citizen – i.e., regardless of whether a person is born in the United States, they are not a “natural born citizen” if one of their parents is a non-US citizen. Some (but not all) of those making this argument generally accept that Obama was born in Hawaii, but argue that he still is not a “natural born citizen” because his father was a U.K. subject and because of his fathers citizenship Obama became a dual citizen at birth.

      • GALT

        Dual citizenship means citizen of both, not citizen of none!

        European countries have been attempting to Re-patriate anyone who has
        a provable bloodline of a single parent, age is irrelevant, as is place of
        birth, including that of the parent. ( Germany, Ireland, etc. )

        Dual citizenship used to and maybe still does comes with a requirement for
        such citizens to make a choice before reaching legal “voting” age.

        As much as you might prefer, it does not appear that your President took
        advantage of his “dual citizenship” in any way ( Kenyan passport ) or
        made the final choice. ( as is required by law )

      • Dennis48e

        galt the US does not recognoze dual citizenship on the part of its citizens. You are either an American citizen only or you hold some other citizenship. In the case of someone like obama who was bporn with dual citizenship that person on reaching the age of 21 years must declare his preference of citizenship in writing. At least that is what I was taught all through school.

      • GALT

        So what you are saying is they DO recognize it, until a specified age, which is what
        I said…..21 being the previous voting age? ( probably not difficult to find if one needed
        to look, but essentially irrelevant to FACTS regarding “dual citizenship”……being that
        it simply concerns “when” the choice must be made, not “whether” the condition
        exists…..since having to choose would seem to indicate that it does? )

  • http://personalliberty.com Sheldon

    I may be wrong but I think we need to show support of our 2nd amendment. In July everyone needs to carry rifles openly for the entire month. First to show that guns do not kill people and secondly to show our appreciation of Independence Day. I know that if someone is alone then he may be challenged by law enforcement or punks and then you had better know how to handle your firearm or have friends nearby to protect your right. Also use military Rules of Engagement incase you are engaged, to defend yourself.

  • Bill Greer

    A thorough and excellent letter, Bob. Unfortunately probably not ONE
    congressperson will take the time to read it. They don’t even read what
    THEY wrote.

  • Financially Insecure John

    This is one emotional group.

    • Vicki

      Oh look. Flashy’s supervisor is back.

      • Financially Insecure John

        Well, it looks like Vicki is pontificating again.

        (speak pompously- to speak about something in a knowing and self-important way, especially when not qualified to do so)

        The word is over two syllables, so I’m helping you comprehend the term Vicki

  • John the plumber

    So…. has that line been scratched into the sand yet or is this just more blubbering on the part of the masses. Folks its not going to get better, as a matter of fact the worst is yet to come . How many more liberties are we willing to surrender before we finally act?

    • Vicki

      Read the Declaration of Independence. Note the comment about mankind’s ability to suffer. Then compare the list of usurpations to the current environment.

    • GALT

      Who’s we? and after you determine that, whom do you intend to act against?

  • Lawrence

    You are wasting your time. They, the federal government, are not listening. They are determined to destroy all vestiges of liberty in this country. If you are a bible believing christian, repent of all known sin and pray god will bring all of us to repentance. It may be he will withhold the judgement we deserve.

    • Charlie

      Lawrence,,,
      Most of the semi heathens on this site , can’t understand what you just printed ,,,they are just looking at the Constitution , not, realizing the CEG is trying to destroy The Constitution as well as The Bible… The right from King Jesus Christ to defend yourself and your blessing from King Jesus is not just a “Right” IT’S A ORDER from King Jesus Christ , see Luke 22:36, and there are many other Scriptures … ALL Life and property that you have are “Blessings” from King Jesus Christ , regardless if one understands that or not… When We True Christians take America back , it will be under “Orders”from AND with Power from King Jesus and His Army of Angelic forces … So ? ….Meanwhile…………………
      Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

      Charlie Freedom

      • Jeff

        So, “turn the other cheek” was the genesis of the 2nd Amendment? Sounds like it has the makings of quite a theory.

      • Charlie

        Jeff,,,
        Your point, no point is ???
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

        • Jeff

          I have no idea to which post of mine you’re referring.

      • Charlie

        Jeff,,,
        can you think??

  • Financially Insecure John

    yes, a very emotional group.

  • Ranchman

    Unfortunately, Mr. Livingston is right (thanks for the article btw). The powers-that-be will never understand anything short of force, making civil war/revolution inevitable. When it will happen exactly, nobody can say, but there are signs one can watch for. If they come to take our guns, implement registration schemes, or try to ban anything, I believe many ill see that as THE sign they’ve been watching for. God help us if this foolish, evil govt tries any of the above but the blood that is shed will be on their hands.

    • 45caliber

      Ranchman:

      I think those in power in Washington WANT the citizens to rebel. They want total control and believe that an example is necessary to get it. It is my belief that they want to get the civilians to form an army/group/whatever they wish to call it and march on Washington. In the process, they will nuke that group. That will, of course, kill a lot of innocent people (besides those in the group) and put thousands more at risk due to a lack of food and water in the area irradiated by the EMP wave from the blast. Then they can point to that blast, insist that it was necessary to maintain the “order” of the government, and make a point that if the rest of the country doesn’t immediately obey that they could be next. This is somewhat similiar to what Stalin did in Russia to become a tyrant, except he used the army he controlled.

  • 45caliber

    According to Scotland Yard in England, there are more guns in England today than there were at the time guns were banned. The difference is that the gangs now have them instead of the honest citizens and the guns are fully automatic (assault rifles, if you please) instead of the civilian models the citizens turned in. And one thing the gangs there like to do is drive up and down the streets spraying bullets at those on the sidewalks to “teach them to respect the gang members”. That’s the main reason the Bobbies there now wear body armor and carry guns of their own – which they did not have to do prior to the gun ban.

    • Old Guy 1939

      I have also read where the weapon of choice is split between knives and Tasers by the criminals in London…Criminals don’t give a hoot what gov’t puts down on paper!!!

  • BrotherPatriot

    Excellent Bob…just excellent and so very true. The militia is the last line of defense for all of us against government tyranny. True American’s will not relinquish our weapons and yes…we still will resist in much the same manner as they did in 1775 & 1946 in Athens.

    Though America has grown some soft belly fat over the years…there still is the Iron Core center that will rise up if needed. Veterans & civilians alike will join in arms against this cabalistic gun grab attempt.

    Don’t give an inch…God Bless.

  • http://YAHOO JAMES SIKES

    if the politicians can’t balance the buget we the people need to cut there pay in half untill they can . We the people have all taken pay cuts to keep our jobs and we didn’t cause the problem . they caused the crash it’s about time they take a pay cut !!!!!

  • Oldshooter

    One thing I have not seen addressed anywhere else yet, is the probable impact of any new gun registration or restrictions on the police/citizen relationship, but it will be quite dramatic. If the police (even a small percentage of them, since the public has no way of knowing if any given LEO is in that percentage) are seen as enforcing such laws, the public will immediately change from supporting them to opposing them, at least through non-assistance. You see this now in crime ridden neighborhoods, where the police are not seen as helpful, but as the enemy. One reason so much crime there goes unsolved, is the failure of the public there to assist the police. This problem will immediately become widespread among the part of the public that now strongly supports the police. Remember that CCW licensees are the most law-abiding sub-group in our population now. That will change immediately and dramatically if new laws restricting guns are passed and not actively opposed by the Law Enforcement community. The political appointees in that community will guarantee that at least Snk about it. SOME of the LEOs will enforce even unconstitutional laws, and that is all it will take to cause the change to come about. Once the relationship between the police and public changes it will almost certainly STAY changed for the worse.

  • http://www.facebook.com/georgia.p.cannon Georgia Papouloglou Cannon

    why you cary a gun yourself?????i saw your video,it says when you go down he will go down with you also,you are a lying thing.

    • Vicki

      Because a cop is to heavy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

    Dear Bob;
    Regarding your “Editors note:” and “ad hominem attacks”.
    I admit to making them occasionally and I apologize for that.
    I am not apologizing for what I’m saying in those attacks, I wouldn’t have said them if I didn’t mean them. What I’m apologizing for and what I feel remorseful for if not down right shameful for, is, the fact that I allowed myself to not have more emotional control over my actions by re-acting inappropriately to the minions of the lefty liberal/progressive/socialist cabal that spew their un-intelligent, knee-jerk, programmed robot, trype onto the pages of a web site that seeks to promote true dialogue and inform and correct perpetrated acts of evil, by this cabal.
    There is no question, under the 1st Amendment, that they have a right to express themselves – no matter how evil and/or ridiculous their ‘viewpoints’ are.
    That this is YOUR website, there is no question, under the 1st Amendment, that it allows you the right to censor it – that you haven’t is commendable.
    That lack of good taste – on both sides of the issues – is painfully obvious, though it seems to me that poor taste is much more prevalent on the side of the radical homosexuals, radical feminists, gun grabbers, anti-Constitutionalists, narcissists, nihilists, moral relativists and the rest of the communist minnions.
    If one has enough integrity to not censor evil and ridiculous viewpoints, how does one deal with bad taste? In fact how does one even arrive at a consensus of what connotes bad taste?
    If one can’t just ignore it, how does one deal with it?
    Does not responding to these ‘types’ and their trype, de-legitimize them and actually make them go away?
    So Bob, how does one maintain their integrity, observe Constitutional correctness and make this a less painful experience for people wanting to visit and participate on your site?

    An aside;
    You said, “Understand that the comment policy will be strictly enforced.”
    Part of me is curious which ‘comments’ you will be censoring, is it possible you could post an article showing these censored comments?

  • Old Guy 1939

    For an insight into one man’s influence on James Madison see the link below and the perversion of original intent on the road to Despotism

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/

    As far as the original intent of the 2nd amendment and why they didn’t add more explanatory language is they didn’t want to! The militia of that time period was considered to be all ablebodied people in a certain age group. In the oppinions/writings of the founders can be found language to limit possesion of arms to Freemen and to limit them to children, Felons(were not Freemen) and the mentaly infirm.An example of trying to do so is the so-called Obama Care bill, some 2700+ pages which is a nightmare of confusing legalism which will be fought/intrepeted in the courts for years to come. See link below to see what states wrote into their individual constitutions.

    http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections

    If you would change course toward a more free America, Americans would have to limit the power of the Fed to what was intended by the Framers, mainly the 10th Ame3ndment. No, they probably didn’t envision nuclear weapons, tanks, aircraft carriers, but what they were well versed in was human nature and the uses of power tending to corrupt and that over the course of recorded history this has not really changed. There is nothing new under the sun…..America’s politicians, the best money can buy for the most part, pass one-size fits all lawa which tend to be ineffective. They also pass laws just for the sake of saying “Look what I did see how useful I am?”, Can you imagine a legislater who goes to Capitol Hill and says,” I really don’t think we need any more laws, as we have so many no one knows what they are” If anyone knows how many there are please post. It was a rule of thumb in the past that ignorance of the law was no excuse but today no person can know all the law that applies to them, not even lawere of the legislators that make them.

    I haven’t figured out what Jeff is trying to say. I am of the opinion he likes to hear himself talk! From muddying the waters with endless “what ifs” and meaningless hyperbole he seems to be all over the map. Just when you think you understand him he seems to come out and support those with whom he was dis-agreeing with, many posts before. Perhaps he is playing “Devil’s Advocate” or trying to stir discussion. Perhaps he might clarify???

    Semper Vigilis/Illegitmata non-Carborundum!!! The enemy’s of Liberty and Freedom have been at it awhile and are not going away anytime soon!!!

    Old Guy 1939

  • Robert

    With that attitude lose the name 45

    • gunner

      I didn’t detect any “attitude” in 45′s post. He was simply commenting on the changes in England since the gun ban was implemented.

      • Wolfman

        disarm the American public=more Government control and power and the so called
        assualt weapons are necessary for American ctizens to defend themseves against government tyranny.

  • The Ole Sarge, U

    Who are lthey kidding? If they outlaw guns, only the outlaws will ave them and we as a free people will be under sseige from our so called governmemt who are protected by guns….Don’t be fooled Americcans for over the centuries those peoples who have been disarmed have been exterminated by those who have them..Their so called goverments. Do not let our freedoms be taken away from us. Millions like myself have served our country to protect our freedom and rights under he Constitution and the Bill of Rllghts and many have died to protect our rights under our Constitution. This government now is tryiing to destroy our sacred rights and liberties and freedoms.;Trying to turn this great Nation of ours into a Socialistic Marxist one.l Please Ameridans, don’t let this happen; . Call your so called representatives both in the Congress and Senate and let them know who they work for. We put them there and we can easily get rid of them. We don’t need a Dictator for a President, we need one who abides by the Constitution of our great nation, not one who wants to destroy it. Remember, don’t be fooled by wolves who are in sheeps clothing. Wake up Americans: for God’s sake. We are being raped by this government. Get rid of them all and let us start over as our Forefathers wanted this country to be. Life, Liberty and the Pursit of Happiness. WE THE PEOPLE, NOT WE THE GOVERNEMTN. Our elected officials only care about themselves and for mone minute, don’t think not.

    The Ole Sarge (DAv)

  • Bud. USMC

    BOB.
    AFTER READING YOUR LETTER TO THE POWERS THAT BE, I SENT IT TO EVERYONE ON MY LIST. IF EVERY ONE IN OUR GREAT NATION WAS ABLE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO TELL THEM OUR COUNTRY WOULD CHANGE FOR THE BETTER IN TWO YEARS. BECAUSE MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WOULD BE VOTED OUT. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD START.
    I GUESS I AM LUCKY AS MY STATE IS KANSAS, AND OUR PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON AREN’T RIGHT ON EVERY ISSUE. THEY ARE ON GUN CONTROL AND TAXES. I AM 99% SURE THEY WILL VOTE AGAINST ANY FORM OF GUN CONTROL. WHEN MY SON WENT TO SCHOOL MOST OF THE KIDS IN HIS CLASS WENT DEER HUNTING BEFORE SCHOOL AND LEFT THEIR RIFLES IN THEIR TRUCKS NO ONE GAVE IT MUCH THOUGHT,BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL TRAINED IN GUN SAFETY BY THEIR DAD OR MOTHER AND HAD PASSED A HUNTER SAFETY CLASS. THERE WAS NEVER A PROBLEM WITH IT AND NO ONE WAS EVER HURT. FOOD WAS PUT ON THE TABLE.
    I REALIZE NOW THE SCHOOL WOULD BE SHUT DOWN AND SOMEONE ARRESTED AND EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL.
    GUNS HAVE NEVER BEEN THE PROBLEM, PEOPLE ARE, AND NOW THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON ARE OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM VOTING THEM OUT IS THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO WIN. I AM OLD BY MOST STANDARDS, I CARRIED A RIFLE FOR THE U.S.M.C. IN NAM IN 66&67, AND WAS TRAINED IN 68 FOR RIOT CONTROL IN THE GOOD OLD U.S.A. IT DIDN’T GO WELL WITH MOST OF US TO THINK THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO FACE OUR FELLOW AMERICANS IN A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT. AT THAT TIME IN THE MARINE CORPS YOU FOLLOWED ORDERS. TODAY I DON’T KNOW, I FEEL VERY LUCKY THAT I NEVER HAD TO MAKE THAT CHOICE.
    AND TO MY BROTHER IN ARMS “LAUS DEO” I HOPE WE ALL REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID. WHEN TYRANNY BECOMES LAW REBELLION BECOMES A DUTY. BECAUSE WHEN THEY COME FOR MY WEAPONS UNLESS I’M CAUGHT OFF GUARD THEY WILL CARRY ME OUT WITH THEM. I HEARD A OLD MAN SAY THIS YEARS AGO DON’T MESS WITH A OLD MAN BECAUSE HE WILL KILL YOU. I AM BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS SAYING.
    SEMPER FI

    • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

      I like what you said here, Bud. I’m in full agreement. Some of us Veterans & “awake” citizens know what’s going on and we are getting pretty pissed off about it.

      God Bless.

    • Bill

      Good one, Bud

  • Richard

    Well said ,I am with you all the way . God Bless

  • DaveH

    President Barack Obama demanded Monday that Congress raise the federal debt limit quickly, warning that “Social Security benefits and veterans’ checks will be delayed if they don’t.”:
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-demands-quick-action-raise-165819237.html

    You see how it works, Folks? First they get people dependent on the trough. And then they use that dependency to take your Freedom away.
    And people wonder why the Founders insisted on the 2nd Amendment?

    • Chuch

      Unfortunately for Obama when govt. shuts down they cannot stop printing the checks for SS, SSI, Vets. Government shuts down for all the government purposes but not for its citizens requirements. So said Newt, who shut down the govt. twice as Speaker in the ’90s.
      He is just a liar.

    • GALT

      Another reference to those “mythical founders”…….so many claims,
      so little attribution?

      Maybe a little identification would be useful here……say a list of founders who:

      1.) Insisted on the ratification of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights being
      unnecessary.

      2.) A list of founders who insisted on the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification.

      This is not to say that “mythology” does not have its uses, but it is rather
      difficult to support the claim that their intent is beneficial or benign, when
      the FACTS are available for examination, and they are omitted?????

  • mah

    I like Max Baucus’ party affiliation (second paragraph)! Unfortunately, there are many of them and they are elected.

  • Wolfman

    disarm the American public=more Government control and power and the so called
    assualt weapons are necessary for American ctizens to defend themseves against government tyranny.

  • gunner

    Thanks for keeping your comments civil and abiding by Mr. Livingston’s conditions.

  • Larry

    Well written and well put! It’s good to see the typical lamebrained, but ever so smart (they think) progresso-commies like Jeff displaying their ignorance of the laws and general stupidity. Above he wants to know where guns are outlawed, and I’ll take it that he means for anyone not a criminal. How about NYC, Chicago, Boston, and likely other leftist paradises where the wealthy and/or politically powerful can own guns and/or have their armed bodyguards (guns are icky you know so one wouldn’t actually want to touch one), and the general citizenry, or subjects, are practically out of luck. But that’s okay because they can call 911 and wait to be murdered, raped, beaten to a pulp, or merely robbed. When/if the cops finally arrive they’ll look around see if the suspect(s) are still handy, and unless you happen to be someone important enough they’ll try to get around to figuring out who done it. A not very cheering thought IMHO.

    • Bill

      Hi Larry,
      Good comments. We should just ignore Jeff. He has nothing to add of value unless you value poverty and tyranny.

  • dg

    It seems hypocritical to me that the Obama administration has supported the civilian uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Syria where the civilian populations have been armed primarily with assault rifles (and I suspect many provided indirectly by the US), but they do not want civilians in the US to possess the same. Would someone explain that logic.

    • Jeff

      If you really prefer the internal strife in Libya, Egypt, and Syria to your retirement home, I’m sure something can be arranged. It is impossible to compare the U.S., with the most stable government in the world, with countries in transition from dictatorship to constitutional democracy. What issues would constitute tyranny for purposes of your resorting to armed resistance? Taxes? War? Healthcare?

      • Financially Insecure John

        Jeff,
        You left out communism, socialism, illegal aliens (from across the border and outer-space) and all people with an IQ of 100 or more.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/Jay

    Gun control laws and regulations exist at all levels of government, with the vast majority being local codes which vary between jurisdictions. The NRA reports [ 20,000 gun laws ] nationwide. A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine notes 300 federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns.

    At the federal level, fully automatic weapons, short barrel shotguns, and short barrel rifles have been taxed and mandated to be registered since 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The Gun Control Act of 1968 adds prohibition of mail-order sales and prohibits transfers to minors. The 1968 Act requires that guns carry serial numbers and implemented a tracking system to determine the purchaser of a gun whose make, model, and serial number are known.

    It also prohibited gun ownership by convicted felons and certain other individuals. The Act was updated in the 1990s with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, mainly to add a mechanism for the criminal history of gun purchasers to be checked at the point of sale, and in 1996 with the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban to prohibit ownership and use of guns by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

    The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act enacted the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which banned the purchase, sale, or transfer of any weapon specifically named in the act, other weapons with a certain number of “defining features”, and detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, that had been manufactured after the beginning date of the ban.

    The Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, but H.R. 6257 introduced June 12, 2008 sought to re-instate the ban indefinitely as well as to expand the list of banned weapons. The bill ultimately died in committee. New York, California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Connecticut, and New Jersey and several municipalities have codified some provisions of the expired Federal ban into State and local laws. -source-wikipedia

    According to President (Barack Obama), the President believes that WE HAVE ENOUGH GUN LAWS ON THE BOOKS NOW AND THAT WE NEED TO AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE!

    Adding more gun-laws is not only redundant, but ridiculous, if we do not enforce the 20,000 gun-laws we currently have!

    • Vin Price

      Here’s a factoid for you: After WW II Senator Dodd Dem, Conn (Not the current one) had the state dept obtain and translate Hitler’s gun control laws and used it as the basis for his gun control laws. It’s been passed along in virtually the same form ever since.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        That is true!

  • AnthonySurowitz

    since the government cannot bring about a solution they then are the problem for their solution only creates more problems and will therefor reap illegitimacy from the White House and it’s minions

  • David Jepson

    Just look at the folks who actually do not mind losing their RIGHTS over what was fed to them security. The left is so out of touch with reality. Listen folks, the need for the 2nd Amendment came about because of the tyranny of the British. That kind of rule was not to be upon us again. So the founders put in the 2nd Amendment to make sure, the PEOPLE had a say ,and yes, to be protected from the government. It is unbelievable to me that people are saying we should not have rifles. Dang your eyes! Wake up and stop being little Tories running around worried that you might not get yours from Heir Obama. Or king Obama. This is a FALSE argument being conducted by leftest socialist folks who want the government to make sure they have no free voice or rights. Dang your hides you leftest bunch of wussies. YOU are what we fought against in the Cold War. If you don’t like guns, don’t own one, but don’t try to keep me from owning one. The criminals will not give up their guns. Just look to Chicago. 22 murders already and they have perhaps the toughest gun laws in the country and the folks are still not safe cause now only the criminals have guns you bunch of none thinking idiots.

  • Mary

    I don’t know why I keep reading this nonsense. I guess it is because I can not believe the ignorance of some people. All that right wing propaganda is very dangersous and many of you will probably find that out before it is over if you keep making veiled threats to the government. If the Obama Administration was using the Patriot Act, the way George W. Bush did, many of you would have received a visit from the Secret Service the first four years.
    Putting restrictions on certain guns and making sure that everyone registers them properly is not the SAME as taking away ALL your guns. YOU ALL KNOW that too but you conveniently leave that part out just to use fear to frighten people into reacting the want you want them too. I have a gun and I am not worried that it will be taken away by the government and it is legally registered. It is not a weapon that can be converted to rapidly fire multiple bullets. Those are NOT necessary for citizens. That is why we have law enforcement. People just like the rest of Americans, doing the job of securing our cities. The right to have guns does not mean people should be allowed to own every kind that can be manufactured. Guns that are designed for mass destruction are meant for military combat. Maybe this country should do what Switzerland does. They have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. The guns are issued by the government but they are not stupid, the government controls the ammunition. It works for them and they have less than 60 gun deaths per year.
    Most adults in the US can get a concealed weapons permit, unless they are criminals or have mental problems, so you are not without a means of protection when they are out in public. What about putting a little more security in your homes with re-enforced doors and windows and possible build a safe room. There are many other ways to try and make yourselves and your family safe from crime without military style weapons.
    The government is run by the people you helped elect to office, not some secret army with some scheme to take over America. Why is it you never hear the right wing talk this garbage when the Republicans are in the White House? For those of you listening to all that kind of junk, you need to get out of that bubble you are in. The rest of us are not afraid of anyone but the nut jobs who think this way and are more apt to kill us by mistake or stupidity.

    • Bill

      Blah Blah Blah, Liberal claptrap….. Yawn

    • Vicki

      Mary writes:
      “Putting restrictions on certain guns and making sure that everyone registers them properly is not the SAME as taking away ALL your guns.”

      It is however punishing over 300 MILLION Americans for the actions of a few criminals.

      STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

    • JC

      Mary writes:
      “Putting restrictions on certain guns and making sure that everyone registers them properly is not the SAME as taking away ALL your guns.”
      ______________________________________________________________________

      Are you crazy? Don’t you know that registration leads to confiscation leads to genocide?
      Have you ever read a history book?

      • Vin Price

        Mary, you need to study a bit of history. I’ll keep it short, look up Hitler’s gun seizures, Mussolini ditto and the Warsaw uprising. If that doesn’t teach you something, all that’s left is to crawl under a large rock. What Obummer is doing is simply following a long standing pattern to achieve a successful dictatorship.

  • Gordon in Texas

    I hope someone with a brain in D.C. understands what this letter implies. Bob is not alone here.

  • http://Aol.com CommonSense4America

    Bob, I hope you sent a copy to all in congress and to the President. Great artical. “We the People” are getting tired of this government intrusion into our lives.

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    nc, Look at the socialist democrat party, any rules and laws the sobs inflick on everyone else, doesn;t apply to the pukes. Providing the scumbags a life time of a salary of their last pay check, even if they only served one term of at least $176,000 with a pay raise increases as the onles now serving. Yet these same pukes, like the jug eared marxist will not give his SS benefits, or have the rest of the multimillionares should.Whatisthesocialist bstds going to pay in to stop the defiecit? Remember the nonstop closed door deal making, and the congential lying that is a democrat MO.

  • NamVet1971

    One of the biggest mistakes most people make regarding the 2nd Amendment is the meaning of “well regulated.”
    Well Regulated
    The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period. They are:

    1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
    2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
    3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
    4) To put in good order.

    So to be “well regulated” by the main definition just requires that everyone follow a guiding principle, such as defined in the US Constitution.

  • red neck

    Is there a debate of gun control?… If there is then why?
    There is nothing in my right of self preservation that includes a debate!

    • Bill

      Hi Red Neck,
      True gun control is being able to hit what you aim at. So, in that sense, we all need gun control

  • Richard Friestrom

    I love my country, I served my country in Viet Nam, followed orders, but wondered WHY we were there and have wondered the same thing on all WARS since. What are our service persons dying for ? Our troops are great and to be honored, our leaders, for the most part should be fired ! Taken millions of jobs with this fair trade act, as we can not compete with 2.00 or less per hour labor. we the people are not listened too. Running our country into debt, spending our social security fund , I never said that was okay ! Now they want to take our right to bear arms, which is in the hands of an army of good americans who would rise up and give invaders hell if needed. America has to wake up to what is going on , to allow our government to take our arms is very very wrong and I believe the war between the states would be small compared to most of what could happen to in force such a law. God bless America and its to bear arms of all kinds People kill people not the guns. If sick people want to kill they will do that guns or not.

  • Charlie R

    Not to worry about the imperial congress and new gun laws.
    Obama will by pass Congress and mandate new laws supposedly that are “within his power”. He has already stated this at least TWICE and there is no reason to doubt him.
    This is what we get when the “new breed” of uninformed voters re elect a miserable failure. Enjoy your new status as a serf in “Obamas Fundamentally Changed America”.

  • Gary

    That was a fantastic read! That is one of the best articles I have read on the subject. I hope this spreads far and wide and gets people to wake up.

  • Dave67

    I am curious. What is wrong with adopting Israel’s gun rules and regs?

    60 day waiting period
    Psych evaluation
    National database to track guns
    Training on the use AND storage of arms
    Limits on the amount of ammo you can purchase.

    Notice nowhere in there is “taking away your guns”. Ok gun nuts… what is wrong there.

    While you are at it, why are their more gun deaths in this country when Canada, Switzerland and Israel all have more guns per capita than we do, have the same violent video games and TV and movies we do? Care to explain?

    The truth is the wackos on the right want guns anytime and anywhere they want and forego this thing called “responsibility”. Libertarians have no loyalty to the country or to society at large… They only care about their percieved “loss of freedom”

    For the extremists out there fearful of the Gov and their imposiong “tyranny” on the country… They forget a few details:

    The military is an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE
    Civilians control the Military

    But that doesn’t stop these nuts… They think because the have an AR-15 rifle, they with they have a chance against zombies taking over the military.

    Its sad really that these people do not care about the numbers of people being killed every year by a tool expressly designed for the purpose of killing, they do not want to examine why this country, and no other in the industrialized world has such a cavalier attitude about violence and quickly picking up a gun to solve a dispute, get even with somebody or society… I think much of it is fear myself… this board is guilty of puttting out fear and paranoia. Maybe some of these authors should look inward on how they contribute to the conditions within this country… But they won’t do that… because they are perfect, conservatism is perfect, the “free” market is perfect in their minds…

    Its always someone else’s fault… the conservative mantra.

    • JC

      Dave67 says:

      January 14, 2013 at 6:16 pm

      I am curious. What is wrong with adopting Israel’s gun rules and regs?

      60 day waiting period
      Psych evaluation
      National database to track guns
      Training on the use AND storage of arms
      Limits on the amount of ammo you can purchase.

      Notice nowhere in there is “taking away your guns”. Ok gun nuts… what is wrong there.

      While you are at it, why are their more gun deaths in this country when Canada, Switzerland and Israel all have more guns per capita than we do, have the same violent video games and TV and movies we do? Care to explain?
      _________________________________________________________________________

      First of all, do any of those country’s have the Constitution of the USA? No?
      Well, we do and it is the law of the land for damned good reason.

      Why don’t those nations that have a higher rate of gun ownership have higher rates of gun deaths? Hmmm….

      Could it be that they don’t have the ghettos that create those gun deaths?
      Could it be that their welfare systems don’t provide for those ghetto dwellers to live generation after generation on public funding?
      Could it be that they don’t have medical systems that prescribe psychotropic drugs to any one that wanders into the Doctor’s office for a skinned knee? You know, like the last three shooting spree criminals were on?

      Hmmm…..

  • Steve Posey

    Thank you for stating what our fore fathers went through and saw as an avenue for future over throw of our country. Those who refuse to look at history are destined to repeat it. Sorry to say, our country is on tract to repeat and I will not allow my family members that died defending this countries constitution be thrown to the side with out a fight. Our country has always stood for freedom. Why are we, as a country so eager to give freedom away? The cost of freedom has bee n the lives of every solider that has gone to war, served in our military? I hope that our elected officials understand that there are enough patriots left that a revolution is not out of question. People can can only be pushed so far before they push back.

  • Bimbam

    Did anyone bother to read the letter. Bob, do you think the asses in Congress even CARE? They get THOUSANDS of these letters like yours. It’s nothing special.

    They don’t even read it. They get their staff to do the reading and then they have 30 second meeting and then the Congress man tells them use response letter #13 and then have it auto-signed after Barry Saetoro gets through with the machine.

    Bob, your letter I hate to say it is soooo NONSENSE. We have to do something else, OK?

  • http://www.facebook.com/raven1041 Jack Collins

    The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (As I see it.)

    It seems to me that the simple use of a dictionary fully explains the God given rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

    2nd Amendment:

    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.

    A well (successful or effective) regulated (accurate and properly functioning) Militia(An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers) being necessary to the security (Freedom from risk or danger; safety) of a free ( Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another) State, (the condition or circumstances of a person or thing, a sovereign political power or community, the territory of such a community) the right (a freedom or power that is morally or legally due to a person) of the people to keep (To retain possession, have a supply of or maintain for use or service.) and bear (To carry from one place to another; transport.) Arms (weapons considered collectively. Any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting. The term (or) not being preceded by the word either means that both fighting and hunting are applicable, not either one or the other), shall not be infringed. (To transgress, violate, defeat, invalidate or encroach on someone or something;.

    Therefore according to the definitions of the words as they were used should have meant the following.

    A successful, effective, accurate and properly functioning army of ordinary citizens, being necessary to maintain the freedom of the people or the nation from anyone or any government trying to take away that freedom, the moral and legal freedom or power of the people to possess, have a supply of or carry or transport weapons or any instrument used in fighting or hunting, shall not be transgressed, violated, defeated, invalidated or encroached upon.

    As far as I can tell by the definitions of the words used in the 2nd Amendment the Federal, State or Local Governments may not tell the people what type of weapons they may have, or how many weapons they may have, nor how or what weapons they may transport with them. Nor may they make any laws, regulations or bans concerning what weapons a person chooses to own or how and where they choose to transport them. In other words there are to be no infringements on this right whatsoever. If a person were to use those weapons in the commission of a crime then the governments may prosecute them according to law. However, maintaining our freedom is not only, not a crime, it is the duty of every American.

  • rich

    Firmly, but reluctantly, one can only conclude that our State governments, and most especially, the U.S. government, is the ENEMY of every citizen who believes in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the traditional culture and values America has adhered to until some recent decades. Our politicians cynically put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. There are two things wrong with that picture: one, all too many of them do not follow the teachings in the Bible, and two, all but a handful, immediately after they are sworn in, have no intention to uphold the Constitution and are therefore TRAITORS form that moment on.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/Jay

    $1 Trillion Platinum Coin: Yes, It Really Originated In A ‘Simpsons’ Episode

    The coin thing sounded great, though, right? Well, it sounded a bit far-fetched…even more so when you consider that fiscal theorem originated in Los Angeles, not Washington D.C. It is, in fact, ripped right from the halcyon days of the late 1990s—when Butterfinger BB’s still existed, and The Simpsons was in its ninth season. In that stretch of episodes, there was one called The Trouble With Trillions, an amusing romp that alluded to Stark Trek and included Fidel Castro.

    Johnson sends Homer on a secret mission. They reveal that in 1945, President Harry Truman printed a one trillion-dollar bill (with his photo on it) to help reconstruct post-war Europe.

    Here’s a succinct episode synopsis from Ed Yardeni, a widely followed economist, that my colleague, Chris Helman, unsurfaced for us from a Yardeni client note:

    In 1945, President Harry Truman secretly printed a one-trillion-dollar bill with his photo on it. He did so to help pay for the post-war reconstruction of Europe. He entrusted Montgomery Burns with the mission of transporting the large denomination to the Europeans. However, the money never arrived, and the FBI suspects Burns kept the money. That’s the premise of an episode of The Simpsons, first aired on April 5, 1998 titled, “The Trouble with Trillions.” Homer Simpson is caught cheating on his taxes and is turned into an informant by the FBI. Along the way, the bill is stolen by Fidel Castro.

    I looked for the episode on YouTube. Alas, Fox and News Corp. keep a tight lid on copyright content. I found only this, the bit in which Castro makes off with the $1 trillion bill:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FYCsnBdLzgI

    That Yardeni included it in his daily market musings reflects how ridiculous the whole
    thing became. A discussion over an idea dreamt up more than a decade earlier as a
    Simpsons plot device.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/Jay

    The Obama administration is considering a $50 million plan to fund hundreds of police officers in public schools, a leading Democratic senator said, part of a broad gun violence agenda that is likely to include a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips and universal background checks.

    The school safety initiative would make federal dollars available to schools that want to hire police officers and install surveillance equipment, although it is not nearly as far-ranging as the National Rifle Association’s proposal for armed guards in every U.S. school.

    The idea is gaining currency among some Democratic lawmakers, who see it as a potential area of common ground with Republicans who otherwise oppose stricter restrictions on firearms. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal Democrat from California, said she presented the plan to Vice President Biden and that he was “very, very interested” and may include it in the policy recommendations he makes to President Obama.

    “If a school district wants to have a community policing presence, I think it’s very important they have it,” Boxer said in an interview Thursday. “If they want uniformed
    officers, they can do it. If they want plainclothed officers, they can do it.”

    Full article: http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/category/child-takeover/

  • http://wakeupusaonline.com Gee Arce

    After reading most of the comments I am in despair because I know that there are at least 65,899,660 people like Jeff out there, about 5 million more than us as indicated in the results of the 2012 elections. Mark Levin calls them “drones”, Limbaugh: “low information voters” and Lenin, “useful idiots”. And we are in trouble and even great articles like this one aren’t going to get us out of trouble. I don’t know what will!

    • Bill

      Good analogy, Gee
      And we should not tolerate any of their BS. A line has been drawn in the sand and there is no compromise

      • Jeff

        Those who listen to Fatbaugh or Levin (at least a dozen out there) are disinformation voters. It’s like watching Fox and Friends. If they get the date right, it’s a minor miracle. Your fat Leader (Hermann Göring’s grandson) is a foul-mouthed bigot who counts on stupid people to listen to his “analysis.”

    • Vicki

      Our founders had a plan.

      Make a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic. Make it difficult to amend the Constitution. Have an explicit set of powers delegated to the Federal Government. Have an explicit set of rights listed that declare some powers CAN NOT be delegated to the federal government even if a majority of the representatives want to. Even if a majority of the citizens want to.

      Of course those are just words on parchment. People have to live up to their oath.

  • Robert

    I was at the cancer center in Illinois they band guns good people were defensles. all you had to do was read the paper hole page of shootings. Better get your life insurance in order need 20 benafisherys. Can’t even amagin a man frome there banning guns sick

  • BURNS

    BRILLIANT!

  • cathie

    we should all send this to the people we elected and see if they like what we have to say because I sure feel this way I am sick of this government doing what ever they want how about you.

  • http://PersonalLibertyNews David

    Thank You,Plato stated”the quickest way to tyrany is to disarm the populace”and again Thank You and God Bless

  • T. Lowe

    One thing our “representatives” better take into account is that after their gun grab & the ensuing civil war they will no longer be in power. Any not dead will be tried as war criminals.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      T, this is NOT a “civil war”. This is the American people defending their LEGITIMATE government from domestic enemies and treasonous representatives.

      We can actually start prosecutions of any state’s representative that was present at the senate hearing where Panetta and Dempsey declared treason. That the UN was given authority over the USA and over the US Military. We can also prosecute Boehner for the letter sent to him declaring Obama’s treason. Start at the state level, so that “our” represetnatives see we are very serious. Also, all judges that do not follow the US constitution as their oaths require are committing a criminal act and can be removed and prosecuted for it.

      Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

      Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      · Those assisting in the cover-up and implementation of Agenda 21, supporting the UN laws applying here, etc

      18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

      · That would be the Senate, congress, and Boehner, Holder, Pelosi, H. Clinton, and the rest of that adminstration. Don’t forget that both Bush’s, and Clinton and thier adminstrations also committed these crimes and need arrest and prosecution.
      18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      · That would be “change” and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel.
      o Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
      When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.
      o “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}
      · Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.

      18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

      {Fast and Furious – Press Releases about it in EARLY 2009, David Ogden the talking head for Obama; Benghazi, Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA – using UN laws, UN here to ‘monitor’ OUR USA elections, UN taxing us, UN Military on USA soil}

      Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or

      Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

      Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

      {Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA, over the US Military – Obama, Panetta, Dempsey. UN & NATO with the assistance of this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush 1 administration…}

      {The UN does NOT have any authority over the USA, nor does anyone serving in any branch of our legitimate government have the power to give them any authority over the USA – Not to decide OUR gun laws, tax us, watch our elections, use our natural resources, put Agenda 21 here in the USA, use our military and any of “our” Generals, etc or representatives who allow it are committing treason – that would be Panetta, Dempsey, and Obama, Holder, (plus H. Clinton, J.Napolitano, David Ogden, N. Pelosi, etc) who said they do NOT represent the USA, they represent the UN. Obama said in a letter to Boehner, Panetta and Dempsey in front of the senate – on video. Foreign laws and Shariah laws used in US courts}

      Breaking their Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying, plus is a criminal offense. Here are the laws applying:

      Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

      The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

      The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

      Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause between the beginning clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

      The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

      They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

      Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

      Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
      .
      Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

      Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

      Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

      Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

      Blacks Law Dictionary: Contract is an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

      The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
      Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Fed 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

      Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

      Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.
      If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

      Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

      5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

      5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

      5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

      18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

      The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

      Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. According to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

      Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office… another precednet. There are many more precedents from every war.

      • Bob666

        Yo Kansas,
        Do we have a problem with Masons?

  • http://iamnowhome1.wordpress.com iamnowhome1

    I say if obama signs anything more against our constitution that he and all like minded be impeached at once then jailed until hearings can begin period end of debate!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      I have a better idea, why wait? Lets strt pushing for the prosecution for treason of Obama, Clinton, Bush 1 & Bush 2.
      Yes, Obama pardoned Bush – but he cannot legally pardon treason – so Bush 2 will get by with murder, mass murder, war crimes, and various other criminal and civil offenses – but we can still prosecute him for treason. We can prosecute the rest and their adminstrations for treason, murder, mass murder, war crimes, and various other criminal and civil offenses. But we must push for it to happen soon or Bush 1 will die and get away completely for his crimes against America and her people.

    • Bob666

      Home1
      Just a curious question, under what authority would you apprehend the president and incarcerate him?

  • andy bixby

    there will be blood on obamas hands if he thinks we will every give up anything….we are the army of america who will fight to the death to protect our rights while the politicians hide behind there skirts

  • http://www.facebook.com/dharned Don L Harned

    I do NOT own a gun but should the government come to take my neighbors gun I iwll fight with my neighbor as though the gun(s) were my own against a deceitful President that has only a dictatorship on his mind!

  • FinoGal

    We the people are in danger of being oppressed and stripped of our God-given Rights!! The path of destruction was sown years ago and now the fight MUST begin or all will be lost!

  • Brent black

    Very thoughtfully and correctly written sir.

  • cgarles Edwards

    Im,One Of The Americans,who agrees with the this,Gentelmen..With all due,respect.

  • http://google sensrbtch

    juss wanna throw my few rounds into the target. an da congress,senate,nys senate,legislature, is trulie a target rich enviro. wat i dun hear is a adendum that states” stand-up for my life rights law!” self-defense! who will protect me from the liberals if my guns r takin away?? zimmerman was right.!

    • Jeff

      You’ll have to resort to your wits. Yeah, I see your dilemma.

  • mercdragon

    To all,
    It is interesting to see the long drawn out discussion of a well documented list of interpretations of the US Constitution and the Amendments. Interpretations are just that, not factual in reference, but referencing factual written statements. Some one needs to remind the US Congress, the Supreme Court of the United States and the progressively devolving LIBERALS that they are following a very steep slope that historically has failed over and over to bring about the claimed utopian civilization they so crave. One does not disarm the people to create a secure country, one arms them to be brought forward when needed. Doubt this? Go ask the Spartans, standing in the gap. The fanaticism of the LIBERALS such as Jeff, only prove how foolish 51% of the electorate were, counting the locales that had more votes than registered voters. It will be a sorry day when the people of this country must walk the streets and fear the lack of personal protection accorded by the laws of this once great country.

    Y’all take care and be safe

    “Damned extremists give the rest of us anarchists a bad reputation” -John Moore

    “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end
    up being governed by your inferiors.” -Plato

  • doug jackson

    Thank you sir for voicing the heart cry of thousands of veterans like myself…I dislike to think that I wasted 20 years of my early adulthood protecting the very people who desire to trash my God given right to defend myself and my family from harm or loss of property.
    So I thank you very much!
    Dougyjack

  • Bob666

    samurai says:

    January 15, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    What do you mean by what God? A person who asks that has no idea of our Christian founding and is no patriot. FOR GOD AND COUNTYRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

    You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out. Remember, differences is what keeps us divided.

    “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is One Nation Under God.”

    Your God or my God?

    George H. W. Bush

    • http://naver samurai

      If you don’t know which God by now Bob, you’ll never know. I thought you would know, since He is mentioned in our founding documents and memorials. But alas! It seems you don’t know our history and Christian founding. Tisk, tisk, tisk. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

      You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

      “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”

      Jesus Christ
      John 3:16

      • Bob666

        Step into my web said the spider to the Samurai.

        I knew that anyone who makes self righteous statements like the ones that you post would show just how arrogant and pompous your dark nature really is.

        One’s belief in his or her creator is a personal relationship. My forefathers came this country over three hundred years ago to escape people like you. It is your type that drove the crusades and the inquisitions. Your mentality is why more people have been killed in the name of god than greed, lust, power and mental illness combined.

        As my daddy once said; those who feel a need to expound their faith and wear it on their sleeves are the ones who tend lack faith. Worship as you please because I will defend your right to do so, but DO NOT EVER question my patriotism because I don’t worship your god or for any other reason. That will never ever be your place in this word or the next one.

        • Jeff

          Bob:

          I’ve said exactly the same thing though probably not as well. I can think of no one less “christian” than people like Faque Samurai who go around professing their Christianity. If Jesus came back, Faque would be first in line to have him put to death all over again. He thinks “turn the other cheek” is a prelude to “so you can blow him away.” The funny thing is he doesn’t realize he’s made a pact with the Devil in the form of these right wingers. Who does he think they have in mind when they tell their stories about the Gooks from ‘Nam? They may like the nonsense he blogs, but in private they see him as sub-human just like Obama.

        • http://naver samurai

          First, there are no atheists in foxholes. Second, I know about the Christian faith of our founders and not one of them any other religion. Third, I believe in God and Jesus more than you can believe in anything secular or atheist. Like I said before, you need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. Atheism and secularism are enemies of this state, for they want everything changed in this country. Some things are OK, but trying to change our founding on the Bible and Christian beliefs are not. In fact, they are treasonous, in my opinion. You and Jeff are the dark ones here. In fact, the Bible says someting about you 2 5th columners:

          “The fool sayeth there is no God within his own heart.”

          Psalms 14:1
          Psalms 53:1

          “Wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

          Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

          Wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

          Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

          Jesus Christ
          Matthew 23:25 – 28

          Jeff says that I’ll be first in line to have him crucified again. Tisk, tisk, tisk. It seems you do not understand why he was crucified in the first place. Since you do not know, you 2 have no chance of understanding. Actually, I would like to be first in line to welcome him back when he returns to earth. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

          You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you 2 out.

          “If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the atheist? Their virtue then, must of had some other foundation than the love of God.”

          Thomas Jefferson

          *Even our founders didn’t think well of atheism. Neeeeed to study a bit more. BTW, I served this great country for 20 years and was highly decorated, so how about you 2?

          • Bob666

            Samurai
            I get amused when the pious resort to bible babble to regroup from a losing argument.

            “First, there are no atheists in foxholes”. Really?

            “Second, I know about the Christian faith of our founders and not one of them any other religion.” You don’t know ship from shinola! And I bet you know exactly what they meant by every word written-Horse Hockey!

            “Third, I believe in God and Jesus more than you can believe in anything secular or atheist” There is not a man or woman walking the earth who can make a statement like that, Jesus Christ-You are not!

            Article VI of the United States Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We believe that every citizen, no matter of what religion (or of no religion), must be equal before the law.

            “You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you 2 out”. I believe that you need to go back to the Bible and read it again, you don’t get to make that call, Jesus Christ-You are not!

            As I said, I have and will fight to preserve your right to worship as you choose, it is obvious that you would never do that for anyone else.- does that make you less than a patriot? As far as service to this country, I will match you head to toe and Just so you know, my leaniage goes back to the American revolution and our founding fathers.

            When My time on this earth is done, that will be between my creator and myself, you won’t be involved because Jesus Christ-You are not!

            On an ending note, it is people like you (pompous, judgmental, arrogant and so total sure of your faith) who are responsible for the devious and dark acts of man-done in the name of god. There is no difference between you and Osama bin laden, you would both sin and do it righteously in the name of god.

            You are the problem-not the solution. People like you give all religions a bad rap because people like start holy wars.

            I won’t respond to another one of you post-you’re a pious a#s and you obviously lack self respect.

  • Charlie

    Bob666,,,
    Your number indicates you may be one of the people mentioned at 1 John 2:22, is that true???
    Meanwhile…………..
    Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

    Charlie Freedom

    • Bob666

      Charlie,
      I am what ever you believe me to be. If you live your life in fear, I am that guy. If you respect and love all people and adhear to the 10 comandments, then I am your friend. With me, You get to choose what I am to you.

      That is the way life works. Does that answer your question?

  • auhunter

    Very well said to which I totally agree. From May of 1988 to October 2011 there were 68 knife or gun related incidents in so-called school safe zones. In EVERY ONE of these incidents the perpetrator was either on or withdrawing from prescribed anti-depressant drugs. Does that give anyone a clue as to the sole cause of these incidents? But yet guns get the blame, they are just tools in the hands of these psychotics, one of which by the way had numerous bombs in his back pack.

  • http://NONE Rob

    Dear Mr. Livingston:

    In light of the Executive Orders issued by the President, EXECUTIVE ORDERS CAN ONLY PERTAIN TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, NOT THE CITIZENRY. ANY SUCH INTERPRETATION WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    In Article I Section I of the Constitution it is clear that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congess. An Executive Order is not legislation it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress. While Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution it has been a precedent for a President to issue Executive Orders that he deems to be necessary and proper.

    The “Necessary and Proper” clause in the Constitution found in Article I Section 8 was not intended to give Congress and the authority to do whatever they felt was a good idea. This clause meant that they had the authority to pass any legislation that was necessary and proper to implement the powers delegated to the United States in Article I Section 8.

    The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Executive Branch of Government and has the authority to implement policies and procedures that are necessary for the administration of the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to him by the Constitution. Policies and procedures passed by Congress are called laws and effect all of the people. An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employees of the Executive Branch of government.

    Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.

    When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

    Please inform all on this Board so they may point this out to their Elected Representatives…

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      I love your reply, and it is mostly correct. The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to SUPPORT AND DEFEND the US Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. A president is held to higher standards:

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

      The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

      The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

      Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, PRESERVE. PROTECT, AND DEFEND the Constitution of the United States.”

      The Framers placed the Oath of Office clause after the beginning clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he can execute it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

      The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

      They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

      Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

      Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
      .
      Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

      Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

      Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

      Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

      Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

      Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.
      If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

      Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

      5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

      5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

      5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
      18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

      The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

      Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. According to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      That would include the Patriot Act, NDAA, all the warrantless spying/tracking/searches by TSA, Agenda 21, UN and foreign laws being used in the USA, etc – all change our government by unconstitutional means which is a crimnal offense.

  • John walczak

    I love it. Please sign me up to help defend our rights!!

  • Linda

    Please folks. Apparently no one here is seeing or paying any attention to the polls where the American people are with the Pres on common sense solutions on the type of guns in this country. We all should be ashamed at standing by while children are dying everyday from the proliferation of guns. We have more guns than the whole of Europe. C After the NRA did the terribly disgusting ad attacking the daughters of the Pres. they have just become irrelevant. This nonsense you are blathering reminds me of the election where Mittens supporters were so sure they had won. Karl Rove’s meltdown comes to mind.

    • Andy

      Linda the clueless and disconected must be living in some weird alternate universe.

      • Jeff

        Linda:

        If you’re looking for common sense I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place. Here we have Vicki who thinks she has a Constitutional Right to her own Air Force.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          “Here we have Vicki who thinks she has a Constitutional Right to her own Air Force.”

          And people who believe that Obama, and his adminstration, has the right to give himself the power to murder someone every week – if you were not aware – that is what Assassination powers are – Murder.

          You see, here in the USA WE do NOT have any Constitution that gives that power to anyone of any “rank”, “office”, or “postion” in any of the governments we have in our nation; federal or state republics.

          • Jeff

            We might actually have some agreement on the drone strikes. I have serious concerns about their use and over-use. I think their use can be a positive thing if it prevents an all-out invasion, but I also believe they should be used as sparingly as possible. But I don’t see what that issue has to do with interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of assault weapons on our city streets.

    • Bob666

      Linda,
      You are engaging in a battle of wits with many who are unamred.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        This is to Linda

        Actually non biased polls show that:

        How concerned are you right now about contempt for the US Constitution?
        Very concerned 61%
        Somewhat concerned 21%
        A little concerned 8%
        Not concerned at all 10%

        Do you (selections below)… of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
        Strongly approve 17%
        Somewhat approve 22%
        Somewhat disapprove 16%
        Strongly disapprove 46%

        How concerned are you right now about high taxes and excessive government regulation?
        Very concerned 72%
        Somewhat concerned 16%
        A little concerned 6%
        Not at all concerned 6%

        Obama has no “common sense solutions on the type of guns in this country”, nor are the “majority” of people supporting him in that or in most of the things he has done.

        How did he get elected? Really, you would ask that when all of the election fruad in every single state has been documeted?

        What you see online is the software package used against “We the people” by treasonous or desparate people pretending to be up to 50 different commenters from up to 50 different areas of the country saying what is scripted for them to say so that they can influence people. It is just another propaganda tool being used AGAINST the American people and those LEGALLY allowed to be here.

        Rather like the corporate media – they are told what to say, how to say it, and what to use to “distract” the populace still stupid enough to watch them. Of course they have now lost over 47% of their watching public – a lot of us caught on years ago when the first Bush was in office – the rest are what the progressives (communists) call “dupes” – useful idiots

        The bad thing for those who: implement any illegal laws, bills, amendments, etc (executive orders are never legal, nor have they ever been legal); who assist them in trying to destroy the USA under her legitimate government – be they Military, LEO’s, or people who are “just doing their jobs” or “following orders” – they will all be prosecuted as traitors when we get it squared away. If you are one of the later – now you understand how the German people let it “happen” there. Of course they were hunted and are still being hunted for the rest of their lives no matter where they are on this planet to be brought back for prosecution. You see, “just doing my job” and “just following orders” are not now, nor have they evern been an adequate or even considered a defense at all. That will also happen to all traitiors of the USA!

        Another question for you, Linda, How do you let Obama and his adminstration get by with murdering people from a “kill list” every week – because there is NO where in the US Constitution or in ANY of our laws that makes “assassination” legal? HOW do you justify it?

        • Bob666

          Yo Kansas,
          what is the source of your numbers? the nuber that I am finding are a bit different.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Linda, you are either foolish or a tool for the gov. If it is the latter you are committing treason and one day you will be PROSECUTED for it if we have to track you all over this planet.

      Of course the USA has more arms then Europe, they were disarmed: Hitler, Lenin, the Monarchs of Britain, etc, etc: it is also where the most democide has gone on.

      Go watch the “Innocents Betrayed”, which is the HISTORY of gun control, including in our own country. I would advise that you don’t eat as it is a full length movie.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

  • rickie foreman

    Bob you are a true patriot my prayers are that millions will take to the streets to reclaim this once great nation

  • http://www.paulstramer.net Paul Stramer

    Bob, this is one of the best articles you have ever written, but there is one thing you left unsaid. The question is who are the real criminals and outlaws. I heard it said that if congress goes along with Obama it will create a new criminal class in America. That might be true, but the new criminal class won’t be the law abiding gun owners who will be the target of the gun grabbers. The criminal class is in government. The gun grabbers themselves are the criminal class since they are willing to abrogate the Constitution, and are willing to risk violence to get what they want. What is their crime. It’s called SEDITION.
    Sedition is inciting the violent overthrow of the lawful civil authority. In America that lawful authority is “We the People”. Read the preamble to the US Constitution. We the People did ordain and establish that supreme law of the land FOR GOVERNMENT TO FOLLOW, not the other way around. If the government servants were not OUTLAWS they would be proposing an amendment to the US constitution to repeal the 2nd amendment, but they know that won’t work either, so they are attempting an end run around the supreme law, and trying to get what they want by fraud, deception, threat, duress, coercion, and intimidation, along with a willingness to destroy peace and good order in our communities. In my book they are already the domestic enemy the US Constitution was put there to stop, and by the very fact that they have thrown such bills in the hopper, (which is the prima facia evidence of sedition) they should be arrested and charged with their crimes, which are being committed as we speak. Their inciting is their crime. They are the outlaw class. They are the seditionists. And when this turns violent, then they will have fulfilled the definition of treason also.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Paul, what an excellent and knowledgeable reply! It was a pleasure to read it!

      Thank you!

  • Charles

    Excellent, Bob. I doubt that I could have said it as elloquently myself!

  • sj

    Amen Bob, well said – to bad those so called law makers in Washington won’t be the one tasked with coming to round up our guns. That would be justice!

    • Jeff

      For a real man like you, they’ll have to use artifice. They’ll invite you somewhere to dinner or for a night of bragging and nut-scratching and while you’re there with Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, they’ll go in and get your weaponry, thereby depriving you of your manhood. Don’t go our for bragging and nut-scratching with Gordon Liddy and Oliver North!!!

  • Bob

    What the Government has failed to do is to define what is an assault rifle correctly. The correct meaning of assault rifle is ” A rifle that is capable of selective firing between automatic and semi-automatic”. Just because it looks like a military rifle does not mean it is an assault rifle. If you take a semi-automatic hunting rifle with a detachable magazine with a scope on it and lay it on a table next to a semi-automatic look alike military rifle with a detachable magazine, I ask you which is an assault rifle. Neither one, because neither has selictive firing. Both work the same but look differently. The Government needs to get their facts straight before attacking anything.

    • Jeff

      Clearly, the definition will have to be according to its capability. If a weapon is capable of firing dozens of rounds in a minute, that should be considered an assault rifle for purposes of legislation. The fact that gun experts may have a slightly different definition shouldn’t matter. Nobody needs a weapon that can, or can readily be converted to, fire that quickly.

      • czman75

        OTC AR15s are not convertible to “Select Fire”. The internal machining of the receiver prevents that. And why would an owner of a legally obtained AR15 want to do that anyway? It is a Federal offense to modify a weapon to that capability. Anyway, the excuses the gun-grabbers use are based on visual aspects of these weapons, ie: pistol grips, bayonet lugs, extendable stocks…OMG, the horror of it all!
        (see the quote above, from good ol’ Sigmund).

      • Dennis48e

        Jeff says: ” If a weapon is capable of firing dozens of rounds in a minute, that should be considered an assault rifle for purposes of legislation.”

        Fail. Many lever action rifles both modern and antique can fire over a dozen rounds in a minute depending on caliber. Many 22 rimfire rifles can fire over a dozen rounds a minute.

        • Dan

          You’re right Denise48e, I can shoot at 5 bowling pins at 5 yards and knock them of, or onthe way, in less than 3 seconds with a 22.

          • Jeff

            But could you shoot 70 people in a movie theatre in 60 seconds?

          • Dan

            I’m not an ‘unstable’ person, I was raised to never point a gun at another human being, unless it was a life or death situation. Now don’t know where you got 70 in 1 minute, because that is nearly impossible, even with a semi-automatic ‘AR’. It would require a couple of clip changes, and that takes a few seconds in itself. (at 20 rounds a clip, he would have to change 3 times). If someone had been armed, they could have stopped or at least slowed him down. You can’t win Jeff, your to ignorant to the operation, and capability of ‘legally armed citizens’.

          • Jeff

            The Aurora, CO shooter killed 12 and wounded 58 in a very short time frame. Here’s a paragraph from Wikipedia detailing his weapon use. Note that 30 rounds came from a semi-automatic weapon with 100 rounds that jammed:

            “t is also alleged that the gunman threw a canister emitting a gas or smoke, partially obscuring the audience members’ vision, making their throats and skin itch, and causing eye irritation.[10] He then fired a 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, first at the ceiling and then at the audience. He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[11] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which malfunctioned after reportedly firing fewer than 30 rounds.[11][12][13] Finally, he fired a Glock 22 handgun.[14][15] He shot first to the back of the room, and then toward people in the aisles.[9] Some bullets passed through the wall and hit people in the adjacent theater 8, which was screening the same film.[2] Witnesses said the multiplex’s fire alarm system began sounding soon after the attack began and staff told people in theater 8 to evacuate.[16] One witness said that she was hesitant to leave because someone yelled that there was someone shooting in the lobby and that they shouldn’t leave.[17]”

            I don’t know if 70 rounds in a minute would be possible or not. How long would it have taken him to unload all 100 rounds had the gun not jammed?

          • Dan

            Well, he would have to have a real fast trigger finger, because the guns only fire 1 round per trigger pull. Yes, we ca be thankful the guns ‘jammed’. Lucky because he didn’t know the weapon well enough to load it properly. The guy was off his rocker, he had no right to have any gun. He may have stolen them, or the Feds didn’t do their job in ‘screening’ him when he purchased one. I own a number of guns through out my life. Everyone of them had to process through an FBI Check before I could even purchase. Somebady screwed up, that is why we need better screening of Mentally unstable people. It should START in grade schools. What better place to get an early ‘read’ on these poor peopl ?

          • Dan

            Also Jeff, I don’t live in s#$#t kicker country. I live in a rural area in ‘UPSTATE” NY.
            I have a feeling that you live in one of the ‘cesspools’ of this country. Like NYC, Chicago, LA, Detroit, any city with a population over 20,000. Who unknowingly rely on the Country Hicks for you water, fuel, food, for naming a few.

  • czman75

    As Sigmund Freud said: “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

    …enuff said!

    • Jeff

      And what did he say about those who fetishize their guns and talk about them like their girlfriends. You know which ex-military guys and security guards I’m talking about.

      • czman75

        Must be the world you live in, people I know that own firearms know they are inanimate tools and don’t give them names. But if you and your friends feel to the need, go right a head.

        • Jeff

          My friends have no need of penis substitutes. Besides, I don’t live in sh*t kicker country.

          • Frank Kahn

            So, Jeff, the women who defend gun rights are using it as a phallic symbol?

          • Jeff

            That’s beyond my level of “expertise.”

      • Dan

        Jeff, My memory said that it’s the women who think guns are a phylactic symble… Maybe not ?

    • Bob666

      Yo CZ,
      got that Freud post in an email a few years ago, he did not say this.

  • Kim Kayser

    Bob,Thank you for your boldness and courage to speak the TRUTH!!!

  • Zeropoint123

    Mr. Livingston,
    We have swayed so far from the original concept of our government. Established only to protect “We the People” against foreign and domestic enemies. Since then hundreds of thousands of American men and women have died fighting for our nation and its amendments and its freedoms, fighting against tyranny and taxation. Our forefathers would surely roll over in their graves to see what this government has now become.
    And yet here we stand 200 years later, only to find what we fought so hard for and died for is sitting in our own laps. I fear the hour is fast approaching when “We the People” must stand up once again and fight against what has become a tyranny of this government.
    I will never surrender my God given rights to protect myself and my family. Each and every word of your statement is more than profound. I stand by you and I salute you !

  • John Matheson

    Could someone please post some internet links that would allow me to verify the statistics cited heret? I’m sure that I will face some rather loud demands to disclose my sources, if I cite the statistics included in Dr. Livingston’s report.

  • Frank

    Once more you assume that only “liberals” and “gun grabbers” are worried about our gun culture and want to see something done about it. You are trying to turn this into a war rather than an open discussion about what can and should be done. Many of my conservative friends support tightening of some exisiting gun laws. Even many of the gun owners I know agree that some laws need to be more strictly enforced or tightened. No one one, even at the extreme is trying to take guns away from stable, citizens with no criminal record. I wish you would discuss what the real issues are. Many of us in the country who are neither”liberals” or gun “grabbers” would appreciate it. You go to such extremes on gun controll that it gets me thinking about whether you might be just as extreme and as out of step with people on economic issues.

    • Jeff

      You think?

  • Robert A. Castro

    I applaud Mr. Livingston for his courageous letter! He is right on point. I plead with every American Patriot to express their support in this endeavour. Tell a neighbor friend or family member about the illegal and unconstitutional laws being implemented ant tell all elected officials that they will be held accountable for their acts. Tell them “WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE”
    Be part of saving our great country! Fight with whatever means you can to avoid the elites from changing our nation into a socialist state.

  • eddyjames1952

    According to Justice Department statistics the huge difference in gun death between The United States and Canada 9 to 10 higher drops to only about 1 more death per 100,000 is you figure in the differences between the two countries. If you just remove the death stats caused from Blacks and Hispanics from US figures ,which Canada is blessed in not having that problem. A full 86% of all gun deaths are from these two groups killing them selves or each other. The answer to the problem? Stay out of their way and eventually they will kill each other off.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      They also do NOT take out and separate in those statistics kilings with arms from LEO’s

  • Ladyhawke

    “I, as President do declare that the national emergency still exists; that the continued private hoarding of gold and silver by SUBJECTS of the United States poses a grave threat to peace, equal justice, and well-being of the United States and that appropriate measures must be taken immediately to protect the interest of our people. Therefore, pursuant to the above authority, I hereby proclaim that such gold and silver holdings are prohibited, and that all such coin, bullion, or other possessions of gold and silver be tendered within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government. All safe deposit boxes in banks of financial institutions have been sealed pending action in the due course of the law. All sales or purchases or movements of such gold and silver within the borders of the United States and its territories, and all foreign exchange transactions or movements of such metals across the border are hereby prohibited.”
    -Proclamation by president Franklin D. Roosevelt, April 5, 1933
    We have been considered “subjects” for years already and the sheeple are none the wiser.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Bet you didn’t realize he was also a “progressive”.

  • D. John

    This party that has taken over Washington in only four years have changed this country, their misguided agenda are leading to a country that is so split an mean that people are revolting by using crimes of hate towards others. Guns are not the reason for all this killing, it’s the goverment and all the threats to the people and the spread of hate by the libs. When you start messing with peoples rights and freedoms you head the country into bad times ahead (tyranny). Stop this revolt and hate talk and start creating jobs, get the people back to work and get the goverment out of our life. A Socialist country has never survived through history so why do libs think it will this time.

  • A. Blackwell

    I just corrected the misspellings in the body of the letter and submitted to my Congresscritters.

    The wording and tone fits my mood on this issue completely. I think I may alter the wording a bit and send it to my State and Local (un)Civil Servants.

    I’m disabled and would be protesting on my State Capitol steps right now, however I just got informed I was exposed to a strain of Meningitis and I don’t want it to spread, especially to my fellow patriots. ( Congresscritters are another story ).

  • CaveAdsum

    Well stated, well researched and well reasoned commentary on the meaning and the intent of the Second Amendment. I fear that if we do not make our voices heard by those unprincipled thugs we have elected to represent us in Congress we will follow the lead of Great Britain in allowing our central government to gradually disarm us and to make those of us who choose to remain armed, criminals. By disarming American citizens our central government will have succeeded in creating its own monopoly on force and leaving the rest of us defenseless against tyranny.

  • Thomas

    As is evident by the knowledge of everyone, Washington is not going to change on it’s own, nor will it listen to the people and fulfill their wishes.

    That only leaves it up to the people to “FORCE” their will upon Washington, or “SHUT UP”, whinning and crying.

    I get e-mails every day wanting me to “Contribute” to help defend this or that, but with a Federal Reserve that can print 40 billion dollars a month the Feds can purchase 50 politicians for every one my money can purchase.

    When these “organizations” get around to issuing a “Call to arms”, I’ll “Contribute” (Join)

  • mikeMAGNUM

    Thank You for a Beautiful letter filled with TRUTHS
    GOD Bless America…..,MALON LABE

  • Daniel Vaughn

    That is the best article, (or Letter) I have ever read. I truly hope it is a letter that was sent to ALL of the Federal Senators and Representatives.

  • Daniel Vaughn

    I love this article, and I only hope that we have 100′s of thousands of Patriots that will ‘stand up’ to any persons that come to get any gun control information, or their guns.
    We need to ban together and resist any more interference in The American Citizens lives.

  • Wellarmed

    Thank You for taking the time Mr, Livingston to write such an incredibly well thought letter. I hope you do not mind that I will be printing it off the site and having everyone in my small town read it before signing their name at the bottom in respective column of yeahs and nays.

    I am certain all of the readers understand that this letter if ignored by our representatives is for all intensive purposes a declaration of war. We will know that as American people at which time we will need to perform our duties in order to maintain liberty in our land.

    I will mail copies of this signed letter to our representatives in New Mexico and pray that that we will remain United as a People.

    May God Bless America.

  • http://GoogleChrome William Braudis

    Dear Friends,

    Are you sure that you agree with obama and the democrats ? Please take the time to read the following. If you do not understand it please ask a friend or neighbor to explain.

    obama is wrong for America.

    The turmoil started by obama and the democratic party over gun ownership is designed to ultimately identify the locations of all weapons found within the boundaries of the United States. obama hopes to destroy the Second Amendment and, in the end, confiscate all weapons, privately owned under the Second Amendment. To take away Automatic Weapons and the extended length clips is no more than his attempt to first weaken the Second Amendment then destroy it totally. All of you anti-gun activists screaming in unison with obama to chip away at the Second Amendment have completely forgotten about an animal who Killed 168 U.S., citizens in one swipe, Killing 19 Children under the age of 6, injured over 680 people including children and all of this carnage at the same time. The results of this massacre, brought on Immediate Gun Control legislation ? well, No, because no weapon was used. Then, what was used to control the items used to cause this massacre, and can this horrible deed be repeated ? What out cry from these same people calling for the confiscation of Assault Weapons resulted is the passing of Legislation so that this massacre can never happen again ? Nothing. The Purchase of Fertilizer, nope, still able to purchase,: the purchase of Fuel, nope, still able to purchase,: rental of Box Trucks, nope again, still able to rent.: So the Timothy McVeigh destruction can easily be repeated any day, any hour, any minute any time and any where, and all without the use of any assault weapon.

    • Adolf Schmidt

      Your right on the money! I used to deliver to Ft.Hood Texas. I watched as vehicles past check points loaded with welding equipment. Most people have never seen the amount of damage that can be done when oxygen and a flammable gas are mixed then ignited. Gun are really crude forms of taking lives. There are far more effective ways at the disposal of anyone who payed attention in school. I hate violence but believe guns in the hands of our law abiding citizens is the first stand against being a victim or oppressed!

  • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

    WWJD?

    Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

  • Adolf Schmidt

    Enjoyed the Letter very much! Have hoped for a long time now that we might be able to get someone in office that had the sense God gave lettuce! Most of the laws that Obama is suggesting have been tried and failed before! When I was a child, there was a room attached to each class room for jackets and supplies. Why can’t they bullet proof these rooms. There are multiple types of materials that would work at a reasonable price! The government can ban til the cows come home, but if a mad man wants a gun he will get it! The only thing that will stop a mad man is a good man with a gun. Police response time would have to be instant to save lives, and we all know that’s not the case. Average response time is 19 minutes. A lot of killing can be done in 19 minutes, even with primitive weapons! The laws on the war on drugs are a joke also. Do you know how much money our government spends on enforcement to remove less than 1% of drug from entering our country? There is over 6000 deaths on the Texas/Mexico border every year due to drug traffic! The laws that are in place for that has increased the violence! When will our politicians learn to make laws to empower it’s people instead of weakening them.

  • George Metsopulos

    Our elected officials took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America (Not “Amerika”).
    Don’t they know that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution?

    • Jeff

      George:

      Perhaps I haven’t said this in your native language. The issue is not whether the 2nd Amendment will be honored; it is WHAT does the 2nd Amendment guarantee? Assuming for the moment it guarantees a personal right to a gun, is there any limit to the type, power, capacity, or number of such “arms” one can have? I’m not looking for an answer as that will have to come from the Supreme Court. I’m just illustrating what is and what is not the issue.

      • Neil

        ANY such limitation on “arms” would clearly fall under the heading: “abridged” – See 2nd amendment. But then, should private persons legally own tanks, anti-aircraft batteries, “Patriot” missiles, Blackhawk helocopters, etc.? Interesting subject for legal inquiry…

        • Jeff

          “ANY such limitation on “arms” would clearly fall under the heading: “abridged” – See 2nd amendment. But then, should private persons legally own tanks, anti-aircraft batteries, “Patriot” missiles, Blackhawk helocopters, etc.? Interesting subject for legal inquiry…”

          Why “abridged”? Why not just “interpreted”? The First Amendment says nothing about pornography but for most of our history it was not interpreted to protect pornography. There is still an implied exception for child porn, so why is the 2nd Amendment the only one that has no limits? I have heard Scalia express the view that the protection may be limited to those “arms” that can be carried, leaving out drones and atomic weaponry. But if you interpret “arms” liberally enough, it can encompass everything.

          • Neil

            1. Arms: I do think there should be SOME limits to private ownership of arms. I also apologize for “abridged”, when I meant “infringed’. THE DIFFERENCE (with porn, for example) is that I never read about “porn” in the Constitution, whereas the admonishment against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is quite clear & explicit. Maybe the limitation is as you suggest, that this applies only to arms an individual can “bear” = carry. This would draw the line at tanks, etc.
            2. Organization: I also wonder: Is a private army a “well-regulated militia”?
            3. Money: Neither is it impossible that the Guv’mint might try to confiscate gold & silver. Coins made of these are THE ONLY CURRENCY specifically PRESCRIBED as legal by the Constitution. It seems FDR DID get away with his TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL confiscation. Why couldn’t this take place agai?. I believe it could. I’m pretty sure “they” will try.

          • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

            > But then, should private persons legally own tanks, anti-aircraft batteries, “Patriot” missiles

            Yes, as long as their STATE government allows it.

            The Bill of Rights was a leash on the Federal government, not, the STATE government. This is what the 10th amendment was about. If your state government wanted to abolish all firearms, it could. If it wanted to have all citizens own cannons, it could.

            An inquiring mind would ask, where did the cannons come from that the colonies used to fight the British?

            Freedom of religion was added mostly for the Quakers so they could worship in their state, PA, as they saw fit. If you wanted to have a Quaker or Mormon state you could. The Federal government just could not force individual states to pay into a tithe system or Federal mandated religion. Many early state Constitutions required officers to be Christian and one went as far as to ban Roman Catholics.

            The USA started to go down hill after they started to add to the original 10. Why? Because they started to use the Constitution as a check on the states, instead of it being used as a check on the Federal government, as it was designed.

          • Jeff

            John Brown:

            You, of all people, should understand the overall importance of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments following the Civil War. It is because of the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court finally ruled in 1961 that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as to the Federal Government. Therefore, Mississippi and Alabama can’t deny the protections of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments to folks they find inconvenient.

          • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

            The problem with regurgitating Soro’s progressive talking points, is many times people end up proving the statement they just tried to disapprove.

            You said:
            “It is because of the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court finally ruled in 1961 that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as to the Federal Government. ”

            I previously said:
            The USA started to go down hill after they started to add to the original 10. Why? Because they started to use the Constitution as a check on the states, instead of it being used as a check on the Federal government, as it was designed.

            Thank you for proving my point, exactly.

            Now, because of Roe vs. Wade, which took away the right of individual states to ban abortion, all the states will be punished, after Jan 22 2013, by God, for violating Luke 1:36.

            Abortion has been literally black genocide. It has killed at least 12-14 million black babies, at least 23x the amount of blacks killed from 1613-1863. As Margaret Sanger intended.

            Then the democRATS help kill 40 acres and a mule. Then to top if off, the government has shoved blacks into apartment complexes and ghettos in violation of the wisdom of the Bible. While the progressives starting with Teddy Roosevelt have shut off 300,000,000 acres of land with “monuments”

            Isaiah 5:8 (KJV)

            “8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!”

            Worse, for the most part black slaves had a nuclear family, over 70%-90% (it varied) were married and the father stayed with his children, as a Christian family. Up to the death of MLK when abortion started to take over the USA. Now it is down to 30% according to CDC data.

            Now, most blacks grow up in a godless fatherless house shoved into ghettos and apartments and Obama’s breathing tax now applies to them as well.

            Why? Because they started to use the Constitution as a check on the states, instead of it being used as a check on the Federal government, as it was designed.

            FWIW: President Lincoln did not free the slaves, God did.

          • Bob666

            Now, because of Roe vs. Wade, which took away the right of individual states to ban abortion, all the states will be punished, after Jan 22 2013, by God, for violating Luke 1:36.

            Then the democRATS help kill 40 acres and a mule. Then to top if off, the government has shoved blacks into apartment complexes and ghettos in violation of the wisdom of the Bible.
            Isaiah 5:8 (KJV)

            “8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!”

            FWIW: President Lincoln did not free the slaves, God did.

            John
            “President Lincoln did not free the slaves, God did.”

            I will probably regret this question, but please explain as I am all ears.

          • http://naver samurai

            Remember Bob 666 (The number of the antichrist), the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free a single slave. God did have the Union win and was the one who freed the slaves. Care to cit a source to where you can prove I am wrong? What proof and evidence can you provide the shows atheism to be accurate and correct? The answer is none. Here is something showing a patriot standing up to Obama bin Laden:

            http://www.conservativebyte.com/2013/01/rand-pauls-plan-to-stop-king-obama/

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “A patriot must be a religious man.”

            Thomas Jefferson

          • Bob666

            “God did have the Union win and was the one who freed the slaves. Care to cit a source to where you can prove I am wrong? What proof and evidence can you provide the shows atheism to be accurate and correct? The answer is none. Here is something showing a patriot standing up to Obama bin Laden:”

            Samurai,

            this discussion has been had and we don’t need to revisit it. It is apparent that you are looking for attention, so for one last time,

            “What proof and evidence can you provide the shows atheism to be accurate and correct? The answer is none” on that you are correct, but you have no proff the opposite is true.

            As far as the Rand Paul video, Yawn! I love Ron Paul and wrote checks to his campaign, but the son is not his father just as you are not Jesus Christ.

            Believe as you will, but I’m going to stick with Lincoln on this one.

          • Jeff

            You’re living dangerously. If you don’t accept the divinity of the Samurai, you’ll go to Hell. I’m pretty sure Hell is a place where you’re forced to listen to Samurai’s Faque History lectures.

          • sam1966

            The personal attack. Classic 5th column startegy. I will not stop telling the truth about our founding, even if I live to be 100 years old. You and yours will surrender first. Here is what the libturds and progturds really want according to a NY Congressman:

            http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/ny-republican-assemblyman-shows-what-democrats-are-really-after-gun-confiscation/

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

            “It is impossible to rule the world without God and the Bible.”

            George Washington

          • Bob666

            One last note Samurai,
            I will say this again since you seem to have mised it. I will defend your first amemdment right to worship as you choose.

            “You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.”

            You need to go back and read the bible again-You dont get to choose as to who is left out because Jeasus Christ-You are not, and making such statements does not make you much of a patriot.

            This is our last interaction, you should be very clear on where I stand.

          • sam1966

            I’ve been doing what you say for 20 years. You? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

            “There are no atheists in foxholes.”

            Samurai

      • sam1966

        The 2nd Amendment does not need to specify type or how many guns a person is allowed to posses, for this is conjecture. It doesn’t matter. The SCOTUS cannot make such a ruling with trying to rewrite the 2nd Amendment. Sheesh! Be quiet you bleeding hearted unamerican coward. Here is something that shows what Obama bin Laden really thinks about the 2nd Amendment. It is a warped version of it.

        http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/what-obama-really-believes-about-the-second-amendment-people-shouldn‘t-have-guns/

        You 5th columners neeeeed to study the Constitution. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        “The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

        Ronald Reagan

        • Jeff

          Do you understand anything? Do you understand the Constitution and the Bible are different? You can believe in the talking snake and it’s your own creepy business. But you don’t get to say what the Constitution means – even as a faque history teacher. Your idiotic opinion is your own. You may believe the 2nd Amendment authorizes you, Faque Samurai, to your own Holy Roman Air Force, but it doesn’t unless the Supreme court so interprets it. Why do you think machine guns are illegal? Because in the 30s it was determined the 2nd Amendment didn’t go that far and we needed protection from gangsters with machine guns. It’s a Constitution, not a suicide pact.

          • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

            > Why do you think machine guns are illegal?

            Because they ignored scripture that said drinking in moderation was okay, that spirits (hard liquor) could be used for treatment, and ignored the fact that Jesus turned water into very good wine and drank wine himself.

            So, yet another amendment after the 1st 10 was added, that interfered again with state sovereignty and common sense, they banned alcohol. It gave rise to gangsters and national crime syndicates, that did not exist previously, along with a large profitable black market. That is what the Valentine’s Massacre was about, wasn’t it? Market share?

            Plus, cost the USA exports and jobs at home and increased the size of the Federal government and it’s ability to track people.

            Then to fall further into Satan’s trap, they took over the responsibility to regulate firearms from the states and people, reserved under the 10th amendment, and did their best to ban automatic firearms owned by private citizens.

            The result, when WWII came, very few soldiers had automatic firearms in the beginning that could be sent to them from the states, this cost a lot of lives. The soldiers that received “tommy guns” had a very cherished life preserving tool, that they would will to surviving friends.

            And that is what you get when you ignore the Bible, the clearly written 2nd amendment, and advice of the 1st President.

            “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — 1st President George Washington

          • Jeff

            So, unlike your namesake, you’d have left Alabama and Mississippi slave states rather than ratify the 13th Amendment? Or maybe they’d be part of Confederate America?

          • Bob666

            it’s OK Jeff, I just found out that god freed the slaves and that Lincon had nothing to do with it, What was I thinking?

          • sam1966

            Another ignorant response from a person with no facts or sources. Remember, Lincoln gave credit to God for everything. Start reading from his 2nd ignaugural speech till just before his death. If you need any sources for this, just go to http://www.wallbuilders.com. When you access the site, go to the library and you’ll find many sources. Don’t answer unless you post CREDIBLE SOURCES. Nothing revisionist. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both lova of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

            “There are no atheists in fox holes.”

            Samurai, E7, USA Retired, 11H

          • Jeff

            He’s won every Super Bowl since 1966 and every grammy since the beginning of time. Why study history at all if God did it all? Excuse me, He did all the good stuff. All the bad stuff is Obama’s fault. I guess you can’t see what a simple-minded argument you’re making. Lincoln deserves no credit for the 13th Amendment because God did it. What happened to the conservative idea of rewarding achievement? Achievement is rather cheapened if God did it all.

          • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

            > Lincoln gave credit to God for everything

            As in …

            Proclamation of Thanksgiving
            Washington, D.C.
            October 3, 1863

            By the President of the United States of America.

            No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these

            great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who,

            while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless

            remembered mercy.
            :-)

            America owes a great debt to Sarah Josepha Hale, too bad they do not teach about that woman in elementary school.

          • http://www.facebook.com/michael.guy.140 Michael Guy

            The Five major beneficiaries of this last election are, China, Saudi Arabia, the UN, Manhattan and the Washington bureaucracies.

            China will continue to maintain its massive trade imbalance and loan back their free trade profits to Washington at terms,conditions and with pleges of collateral ( like Taiwan) favorable to the multi-millionaires who run the Chinese Communist Party. The EPA will continue to shut down competitive American factories and displace both union and non-union workers for the benefit of China
            Ever since 9-11 when 19 Saudis attacked the World Trade Center, our nation has aided Saudi Arabia and their Sunni jihadist in destroying every Shia rival to Riyadh. We will continue to arm and give Billions in aid to Sunni terrorist like those in the Muslim Brotherhood despite the fact that it is Saudi financed and supported terrorist who attack the US from Libya ( Benghazi) Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Egypt and Pakistan.
            Our President and Senate will continue to use treaties as a means of treason, turning over sovereignty to non-elected foreign plutocrats and bureaucrats. (Perhaps some of the ones who own our national debt?) A new Pacific Free Trade Treaty is in the works, insuring American businesses relocate to avoid over taxation and over regulation. Since Treaties supercede our Constitutional Rights, the socialist will use treaties as a means of implementing their one-world dictatorship , In this, they will imitate Benedict Arnold who also betrayed this country for money and a patent of nobility in a global government ruled by elite lords.
            Our” too big to fail” TARP beneficiaries and the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank will greatly benefit with this new administration. They too control the economy , money supply and interest rate with the impunity of tyrants and dictators. These Manhattan plutocrats, like Goldman Sachs and its subsidiary the US Treasury, will sell Cap and Trade government issued carbon ration cards for further lucrative profits.This is what the president means by combating the effects of a gas that comprises 0.0036 of the atmoshere and ostensibly causes global warming.
            Our Washington Bureaucrats will grow in power as they further restrict personal freedom and opportunities for prosperity. Like the President with his executive orders, governmant agencies will continue their dictates, rules regulations and restrictions with as much concern for the common citizen as Marie Antoinette or the concern that the EPA had for the UMW. Why not? Bureaucrats, like federal politicians, make six legal figures, no matter what.
            Michael Guy

          • Jeff

            “Our” too big to fail” TARP beneficiaries and the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank will greatly benefit with this new administration. They too control the economy , money supply and interest rate with the impunity of tyrants and dictators. These Manhattan plutocrats, like Goldman Sachs and its subsidiary the US Treasury”

            Interesting, then, how all the Big Banks backed the other guy. Guess they’re just good corporate citizens looking out for the little guys, eh?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            “Our President and Senate will continue to use treaties as a means of treason”.

            They cannot lawfully use “treaties” as a means of treason. Since they are unlawful – they are invalid. Starting with Treaties, like those we have with the UN:

            Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution:

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF (<– means “according to"); and ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (caps are mine)

            Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES.”

            All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

            Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

            November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:
            The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine)

            Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
            Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

            The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919.

            Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

            United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

            In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

            In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
            “No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

            U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…”

            It is VERY important that all people realzie that we are NOT under a dictatorship, and just because Obama says it or signs it does NOT make it lawful. Just because he can either dupe those who do not kow their duty to the Oath and this country, or use treasonous scum to try and enforce it still does NOT make it lawful.

            Any US troops/law enforcement that come to anyone's door and breaks it open to go against any of the BILL of Rights, the US Constitution is committing an act of war and treason against the USA and her people. "We the people" can lawfully defend themselves, their families, their neighborhood, city, and state from those attacks. Any foreign/mercenary troops that do the above are committing an act of war against the USA and her people.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Plus, if your state representatives or the representatives sent to the fed gov to represent your state are breaking their oath – it is both a criminal and civil offense. If they are assisting in the implementation of Agenda 21, etc in your state (businesses, people included) it is an act of treason.

            If you cannot find a representative that will keep the oath required of them – find your constitutional sheriff and request that they do their duty and arrest them for their criminal actions so that they ca be prosecuted.

          • http://naver samurai

            Well said John! Well said! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

            “Respect your country always. Respect your government, when they earn it.”

            Samuel Clemons

          • http://naver samurai

            The SCOTUS has nothing to say about this Jeffy, for the 2nd Amendment is plain enough to understand. Why do you always talk about a different interpretation? You cannot make the Constitution to fit your way of thinking, but your thinking should be done according to the Constitution. It is ignorant people like you that are tearing this country apart from the inside. But alas! This is what you and your ilk want. You want this country to forget our God given rights (First 10 Amendments to the Constitution), our Christian founding, and turn it into a state where everyone is lazy, complacent, dependent on the government, and unable to protect itself. You and yours are nothing but cowards and traitors. These are facts and cannot be denied. Just look around and see what is going on around you for answers to your “supposed” questions. We were founded a Christian, not secular, state and shall be forevermore. And I shall continue to preach the truth about this country, no matter how much the truth hurts you and your 5th column cowards and traitors. You are a real Jane Fonda. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you and yours out.

            “A thourough knowledge of the Bible is better than a college education.”

            Theodore Roosevelt

          • Jeff

            “The SCOTUS has nothing to say about this Jeffy, for the 2nd Amendment is plain enough to understand”

            Really? Is that the kind of crap you teach poor, impressionable children who don’t know you’re a right wing Faque? Assuming arguendo that the Amendment protects a personal right to “bear arms” (i.e. ignoring the first clause as politically inconvenient), define “arms” as used in the Amendment. Does it include everything the military has up to and including atomic weapons? Does it include drones? Does it include anti-aircraft missiles? How about fully automatic machine guns? Why have machine guns been illegal for most purposes since the 30s? If you think they’re protected under the 2nd Amendment, why don’t you sue the Government and show your students how you take on the system in the name of Jesus? Probably because you’d get laughed out of Court.

          • sam1966

            Now I see that Jeff is getting knick picky. Those thing you have posted are irrelavent. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. It says that American have the right to bear arms period, there needs no defining as to what arms they are talking about. Though it is true the weapons of today are different than 1789, but the same meaning is in place. If you want to take my weapon, be a man and come here to Elkhart, Indiana. I keep mu firearm within arms reach. That’s how we were trained in the army. But alas! It seems that you didn’t have the honor to serve. Just like the traitor and cowards you are. Here is something showing that the states are using the 10th Amendment against Obama bin Laden:

            http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/states-pulling-rug-from-under-obama-gun-plans/

            Looks like patriots from many states are motivating their governors to stand up for their God given constitutional rights. Looks like you and your 5th column ilk are losing on this one Jeff. What lies are you going to pull out next, Jane Fonda? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

            “If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”

            Ronald Reagan

          • Frank Kahn

            Actually, Jeff, it is the anti-gun people that tend to ignore the first part of the second amendment, not the pro-gun. When anti-gun people say that you dont need “assault weapons” to hunt with, they are ignoring the first part of the amendment. It is not about hunting, because the first part says why the rights shall not be infringed.

            “As passed by the Congress:

            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.

            As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

            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”

            It is because a free state (we the people), needing a well regulated militia (reserve fighting citizens), to preserve it.

            People with a much better understanding of english than me have agreed that the first parts describe the intent of keeping the right to bear (possess) firearms must be maintained.

            Militia is a word that is of contention when people discuss the meaning. Basically it is an armed group of people. To be well regulated means that it must conform to some higher authority but the amendment does not specify who that authority is but the word STATE might imply that it is the individual states that are the higher authority not the federal government.

            On the subject of arms, I hear some say it is to vague and not specific what it means by arms. Well, we might say that the writers were deficient in that respect, but it would seem that they said exactly what they intended. They could not know the future advances in technology so they said ARMS which encompassed all weapons that can be used to fight with.

            We usually only get into arguments when it comes to restrictions on GUNS but ARMS covers many more things than GUNS. Knives, swords, spears, bow and arrows, cannons and yes even bombs, missiles, fighter or bomber aircraft and now drones.

            I might draw the line at nuclear weapons but that is more of a global concern. But as it stands, you can legally own machine guns and even fighter planes in this country. The cost of ownership is rather restrictive but it is legal.

          • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

            > but it would seem that they said exactly what they intended

            You are correct because they owned cannons themselves before the war.

            Did John Hancock own and build ships?

            Did he outfit them with cannons?

            How did Paul Revere learn to cast cannons for the war?

            Why is peace loving William Penn’s family crest cannon balls?

            At the beginning of the 1776 war, almost all arms for the Rev. troops came from private citizens. Private warships totally out numbered the Continental Navy and had over 10x the # of cannon. If it was not for the private warships there likely never would have been a Continental Navy. Very few colonies had any sort of armed navy at the beginning of the war. Using the wonders of the Internet I was able to find this without resorting to hard copy.

            http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

            Most armed merchant ships had far bigger then 1#-3# cannons, the only way to capture them would be for you to have a 12# or bigger cannon yourself. Many times the only way to capture the ship was to slow it down with chain shot and take out the sails. You don’t do that with small rail hand cannon.

            Because private citizens owned the biggest weapons of mass destruction at the time AND before the war, CANNONS, that the Revolutionary War was won. You might think of some of the ships as today’s destroyers and light cruisers, they were far more then just gunboats.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            The militia is EVERY ABLE-BODIED CITIZEN ,AND THOSE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE HERE, AGE 18 – 45. They can have any weapon the military soldier uses, as many of and whatever type they want.

            Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654: Breaks the militia down in three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are;
            · The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,
            · The unorganized militia and
            · The regular army.

            It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied *male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
            (*It encompasses every able-bodied person that would normally serve within the military)

  • Irish Love

    First let me make it clear I am an ex-republican; never a democrat; a “Three Percenter” and a member of the Tea Party. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or sportsmanship.

    Jeff: You appear to be “unable” to seperate the criminal & mentally ill from “Law Abiding Citizens”. “The Right To Bear Arms…” is about “tyranny” PERIOD! The right for every AMERICAN citizen to “brace” (arm) themselves against: government control; violation of OUR Constitution; Bill Of Rights; and Declaration of Independence. NOT to mention, a “leader” who has now positioned himself to a “dictator” posture.

    If you would visit a LIBRARY ans stay away from Left or Right media, you will find TRUTH in history of the world and how socialism; marism; and communism blossomed throughout the World.

    I am Locked & Loaded and WILL NOT surrender my 2nd Amendment right PERIOD. G’Day Mate!

    I am from the “Question Authority” generation and I continue to be amazed at the number of Americans who possess a “sheep” mentality that will run this countery into the ground. Perhaps if you spent sometime in a country whose government is controlled under “socialism” and/or “communism” you may enlighten yourself on HISTORY and why AMERICA fought for independence from TYRANNY.

    AMERICA: NOT a race but a CREED; it is an HONOR!!

    • Dan

      Good response, I really pe that there are a lot of us out there that will fight any tyrantical politicians. They have increased the security around Washigton….what does that signify to you ?

  • Dean RKBA for Life

    Mr. Livingston,
    I have been a gun rights advocate since I received my first firearm at the age of 14. I am now 47yoa. You speak the absolute truth as to what is going to happen sooner rather than later here in the USA. Civil war/ revolution are on the very near horizon for us as a country. In my many travels and contacts, throughout my life, with many a good citizens/patriots of this country, they ALL express the same loathing and hatred of what spews forth from the nations capitol. As a student of recorded history, I feel we are in the final stages of the demise of what was once the greatest nation on the planet, I fear that many will perish in the fight to rid ourselves of the locusts that infest our government so that we good citizens can once again have hope for freedom as GOD and our Founding Fathers envisioned for us. Amen. I pray that all patriots have the moral courage to do what is needed for the good of all mankind.

  • LMS

    The U.S. is spiraling into chaos due to the policies of Obama and our legislature. Obama is happy to see it. He wants to bring proud america to its knees. If the Government is to maintain any control they must remove as many guns from citizens as possible. The gun thing is only the begining. Last presidental election some of us were ridiculed for stating that our number one priority was defeating Obama. My answer was yes, Obama was and is a greater threat to our country than terrorists. Too bad the GOP put up for president an Icon for the rich who became the object of the effective class warfare led by the obamacrats. The liberal voter turnout in Colorado was enhanced by putting legalizing recreational use of marijuana on the ballot. While they were there they also just pulled the DEM. lever. Now we have a whole state legislature of liberals.

  • In South Dakota

    And here is a letter from my South Dakota Semtor..

    JOHN THUNE
    United States Senator

    Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rankin:

    Thank you for contacting me about the debate surrounding Second Amendment rights. I appreciate hearing from you.

    There is no doubt that we have witnessed great tragedy and violence in our nation with the devastating mass shootings that occurred in 2012. There is no place for this type of violence in our society. As we move forward, we will need to look for a better understanding of ways we can prevent such violent acts from happening in the future. In order to truly find a lasting solution, we need to look at what happened from all sides and every contributing factor.

    On January 16, 2013, the President held a press conference to outline his plan to reduce gun violence, which included 23 executive actions and various legislative proposals. The executive orders included requiring federal agencies to provide relevant data to the background check system, improving ways for states to share information with the background check system, providing law enforcement and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations, and increasing mental health parity. They did not include any gun registry or gun ban laws.

    However, the President called on Congress to pass various legislative proposals, including the reenactment of a federal assault weapons ban and limitation on ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. While I agree that we must keep criminal and high-risk individuals from obtaining and using firearms, I strongly question the ability of weapon bans to prevent such individuals from acquiring firearms, especially since they are already banned from receiving or possessing firearms.

    Rather than disarming law-abiding citizens and passing more restrictions, we should shift our focus on making the current restrictions more effective and efficient. Congress has passed laws that are aimed at preventing criminals and certain individuals from obtaining firearms. For example, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires background checks for the purchase of firearms from licensed dealers and prohibits nine classes of persons from receiving or possessing firearms, including persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year, fugitives, persons that unlawfully use any controlled substance, and persons adjudicated as “mentally defective.”

    A large portion of the debate surrounding mass shootings involves mental illness. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is the central clearinghouse that must be checked before a firearm can be transferred. While those adjudicated “mentally defective” are prohibited from receiving or purchasing firearms, only about half of all states forward records of persons adjudicated as mentally defective to the FBI. Reforming and modifying the NICS will help ensure that firearms will not get into the hands of those suffering from mental illness. As we look for solutions, we also need to look closely at our healthcare system and evaluate areas of improvement in order to help those suffering from mental illness.

    We also need to have a serious discussion about safety in our schools. We need to identify ways to increase security in our schools and provide more counseling services to students. Our children deserve a safe place to learn and fulfill their educational goals.

    This is a complex problem that deserves complex solutions. A great amount of emotion surrounds this debate and I hope logic and facts will guide our solutions. As we move forward as a nation to prevent such acts from happening in the future, I will listen to all sides and proposals with an open mind.

    Thanks again for contacting me and sharing your thoughts. If you would like additional information on my activities in the Senate, please feel free to visit my website, http://www.thune.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

    Kindest regards,

    JOHN THUNE
    United States Senator

  • Financially Insecure John

    Most GOP voters continue to believe that congressional Republicans are out of touch with the party base, while Democrats are happier than ever with how their team is performing in Washington, DC.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% of Likely Republican Voters believe Republicans in Congress have done a good job representing their party’s values over the past several years. Sixty-three percent (63%) of GOP voters think congressional Republicans have lost touch with the party’s base throughout the nation.

  • Michael Guy

    Dear Mr. President:
    If I change my name to Mohammed Martinez and register as a Democrat can I avoid your executive decrees nullifying both the second Amendment and the Constitutional process of enacting laws via elected legislators? I remember how you and Eric Holder gave the same types of guns you wish to outlaw to Mexican drug lords. You give welfare, SSI and EBT money to your voters so that they can buy these illegal drugs and enhance the profits of violent drug gangs. You, Hillary and the State Dept. also give money and arms to the Sunni jihadist in the Muslim Brotherhood, so they can kill Christians, Jews and even atheist throughout the world. So, I am going to the Social Security office and changing my name , then getting a couple of voter registration cards as a Democrat.
    A Salaam Melekum and Gracias
    Mohammed Martinez

    Every Roman Dictator since Julius Caesar kept up the pretext of a Roman republic by affixing the letters SPQR to their tyrannical decrees; For the Senate and the People of Rome. The Roman tribunes and Senators were as ineffectual and vestigial after Cicero as our legislators seem to be. WE have a Socialist Sun King who can recite Louis XIV with equal vehemence, “Etate c’est moi” “I am the state”. This Administration armed Mexican drug lords in Fast and Furious. The drug lords make their millions because this administration gives welfare, SSI and EBT to addicts. This administration extorts tax money from you and then gives it to parasites in the HHS welfare society so that these Obama voters will enhance the profits of violent drug gangs. So not only is tax money or loaned money from China filtered through to the vicious drug cartels, but Eric Holder even armed these gangs with the same weapons he wants to confiscate from conservative, capitalist, Constitution-loving, law-abiding American citizens. Add to this hypocrisy, the financial aid and arms sent to the Sunni Jihadist in the Muslim Brotherhood and you can see this Democratic Administration wants to arm Saudi-controlled, Arab Spring” Sunni terrorist who will be killing Shia, Christians , Jews and socialists throughout the world, including America. But this Administration and its Democrats want to abrogate and nullify our social contract, i.e. the Constitution with its Bill of Rights and then confiscate property to which citizens are entitled, especially the arms and ammunition owned by Christian, conservative, capitalist, Constitution-loving, Caucasians. Is this to make us subject serfs in a global Holy Roman Empire, ruled by elite liberal lords, Bolshevik bureaucrats and progressive plutocrats in the UN?

    • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

      > Is this to make us subject serfs in a global Holy Roman

      Untrue.

      When Satan sets himself up as the Messiah, he wants the USA gone for two reasons. It was founded by the ten “lost” tribes of Israel and he does not want the USA pointing out the emperor has no clothes. We are in the way of his one world government.

      Satan’s own children = Cain = Kenites (ruddy complexion just like Solomon) = killed Jesus = tares interspersed with all the races. One of the countries they took over was … KENYA from the Cushites (founded by Ham and his son when they married into the black race). Kenya means in spoken Hebrew Cain (Ken) our God (Jah).

      The Kenites sold the Cushites into slavery to ARAB slave traders, most of the “brown” people in this country are Cushites. The Kenites are the ones in Kenya which the Cushites call “afro-arabs”. This is who Al Sharpton is and it says so in his own words.

      “White folks was [sic] in caves while we was building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

      That is the Egyptian Empire! He knows he is not black, that is why they have started being the NAACP being people of color.

      Obama’s war on the UK and Obama’s dissing of Queen Elizabeth has to do with one thing only. She is a direct blood relative of Jesus from the Judah king line through one of the daughters of King Hez.

      You are dealing with a demon possessed Obama, I know I have dealt with it before. It is a spiritual war with Satan and the RCC is nothing to him. They are already compromised and fallen. The USA is about to fall too and abortion (Luke 1:36), borrowing (Deut 28:12), and homosexuals (Lev 29:13 Rom 1:26) will be the cause of our final Civil War, if God does not intercede.

      Buy all the food and ammo you can.

      • Jeff

        Wow. Where DO you get your mushrooms?

  • Chris

    NEVER think whatever you have to say will fall on deaf ears. The “point” is to “get your thoughts OUT there” because to do/say nothing is WORSE as it only shows you are complacent. DON’T go down without a fight! FIGHT for your “freedoms”……..it’s the LEAST “you” can do when so many are dying on the battlefield to protect those freedoms. “I” am sending this article by Bob to Obama and my congress people.

    • Financially Insecure John

      If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.

      Emergency personnel had to be called to the scene of the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina after a gun accidentally discharged and shot two people at the show’s safety check-in booth just after 1 pm. Both victims were transported to an area hospital, and the Raleigh Fire Department announced that the show would be closed for the rest of the day.

      Gun Appreciation Day is the combined effort of dozens of far-right organizations who have been vocal opponents of gun control advocates’ efforts to reduce the number of dangerous weapons on our streets and prevent them from ending up in the hands of people with criminal backgrounds or a history of mental illness. In response to a renewed push for sensible reforms of gun laws after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, groups like the National Rifle Association and the founders of Gun Appreciation Day have instead advocated for an increase in the number of guns in public places like elementary schools, arguing — falsely — that more guns will mean more protection for individuals.

      But today’s unfortunate accident, which took place at a safety check in surrounded by hundreds of people who presumably have at least some training on how to properly handle a dangerous weapon, undermines that case. Earlier this week, an armed security officer at a Michigan charter school accidentally left his gun in a restroom that is regularly used by students as young as five years old.

      A representative from Political Media, the group responsible for organizing Gun Appreciation Day, was not immediately available for comment.
      UPDATE

      Two similar incidents occurred at entirely separate gun shows in the Midwest, one in the Cleveland suburb of Medina, Ohio and the other at the state fairgrounds in Indianapolis, Indiana. In Ohio, the local ABC affiliate reports that one individual was brought to a hospital by EMS, and in Indiana Channel 8 WISH says that an individual shot himself in the hand while trying to reload his gun in the show parking lot. That brings the tally to 4 victims of gun violence so far at three different gun shows during the country’s first Gun Appreciation Day.

      UPDATE
      CNN is reporting that three people were injured at the gun show in Raleigh, not two as originally reported. All were victims of a shotgun that fired while the owner was removing it from a case.

      • Neil

        Great! Transporting a loaded shotgun in a case. Not knowing how to check it or UNLOAD it safely. Not good gun advocacy, unfortunately.

        • Financially Insecure John

          Neil,
          Unfortunately, in a free society, not everyone benefits from free will. Guns are like children in one way, not everyone who has child or a gun should have one. Both guns and children require emotional maturity and common sense and more than a few that that have both guns and children have a total lack of emotional maturity & common sense.

          Just like morality, you cant legislate emotional maturity or common sense. But, Society would be better off if there were a litmus test for both.

  • ibcamn

    hey all,you know what?this might not have much(or nothing)to do with this piece,but my father passed away right before Christmas.I live in Wisconsin,he,back home in Florida.not only is the state being diffecult with my dads property and taxes,the V.A. was being a pain,and insurance company,(i’m sure everybody knows this)it makes life a pain,anyways,i’m on my way home(Wisc.) and i stop at a wayside to relieve myself,and when i come out,i’m stopped by a T.S.A. agent!!WTF are they doing out of the airport and why asking me questions??the TSA,!!!i had no clue what these idiots are up too,asking me where i’m going where ive been and how long i was there and how long it toke to get here and then to home.then when i refused to answer this knob,a Tenn. state trooper came over and wanted to know why i was harrasing HIS officer!they tried to search me and my truck.because i asked if the TSA had any right to even be here or be asking me anything!but this in your open letter,is this why Obama wanted TSA at airports in the first place?to slowly adapt us to seeing these jerks everywhere?they were pulling over truck drivers too!how in gods name does a untrained TSA employee play the part of a police officer??is this Obama’s secret police he’s been creaming his pants over?they were going to detain me because i wouldn’t answer the questions the TSA and some the police asked me.i have rights and i know what i don’t have to answer,they didn’t like that one bit and i know i pissed off the TSA dick(lets say his name was richard)i will never acknowladge TSA as law enforcement!what the hell is going on in this country??are we a police state?i wonder what the TSA dick would have done if he found the weapons and ammo in my truck?i mean he has no police training,that was clear by the way he approeched me and handled himself!but they do have something in common with the police,they both have a GOD COMPLEX!!!!

  • Neil

    So: “Samurai”, a Korean pretending to be Japanese. A little Hyo-do (respect) would be appreciated. I find some comments good. However, MANY are insulting, ad hominem, racist, misguided and overall in violation of the written guidelines posted for comments on this article. Apparently, the monitoring is theoretical.

    As a recent, non-regular visitor to this site, I appreciate the thoughtful articles, written in decent and respectable American English. I wish the comments would follow suit.

  • Cliffystones

    I just returned from the Shot Show in Las Vegas. Wow! Talk about information overload. But overall it was great and I learned about many products, some I never imagined existed.

    One morning on the way to the show there were a couple of fellas from South Africa sitting across from me. I heard them comment as to how Obama was like a rock star over there. Yet they had been here a week and not met one person who liked the guy. They also talked about the ANC (African National Congress) and how they were organized like Kadafi’s military government. And that the ANC’s primary goal was to take as much as they could from whites to “get even”.

  • Charles L.Tilley Jr.

    I would say protecting our Consitution and the Bill of Rights .should be the most important thing here. This document covers both our 1st and 2nd Amendment under the Consitution. These right have been protected in blood over the last 240 years .Even against our own brothers here in the United States. Sometimes our tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time.

  • slstanley1

    I just love the way you write, Bob. You speak absolute truth with no sugarcoating or dancing around the issue to “prevent hurt feelings.” Keep the faith!

  • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

    > Bob 666
    > I will probably regret this question, but please explain as I am all ears.

    I suppose I could start with President Lincoln’s own words.

    “I made a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee was driven back from Pennsylvania, I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves.”

    What God left behind to let you know it was him that freed the salves is the “Curse of the Zeroes”, that went unsolved until I found the keys. The odds of it being random chance is almost beyond computation and the odds of it being random is probably only exceeded by the chances of Obama’s fake birth certificate being real.

    The problem of solving it and finding the keys to be found is to what President Reagan said.

    “Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face.”

    On March 4, 1865, Lincoln delivered his second inaugural address.

    “Fondly do we hope — fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword”

    Here is the interesting thing. Where did the Twin Towers stand? Where was the nation first dedicated by President Washington? Answer below.

    What Lincoln is going back to is Thanksgiving being declared a national holiday in 1863, after we forgot God as a nation for over 40 years. This is the key to many things. 1863-250 years = 1613.

    What happened in 1613 that President Lincoln would have known and referenced, after reading Sarah Josepha Hale which prompted him to declare Thanksgiving a Federal holiday?

    Year 1613

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-globalization (click here)

    “The selling of slaves to the New World opened up trading posts in North America; the Dutch opened their first on Manhattan Island in 1613.”

    You were suppose to let slaves go after 50 years for the Jubilee, especially your brother. The blacks sold into slavery by the Kenites from Kenya, were our in-laws. If the USA had done this within 50 years of our independence, the USA would have avoided the punishment, worse the USA violated the very tenants on the Bible as how you were suppose to treat slaves. Worse still that they took the property and liberty of the Indians and free slaves that had converted to Christianty. FWIW: for slaves allowed to use firearms, they limited their bullets and powder to a lot less then 10, just like NY.

    250 years of slavery divided by 50 years of Jubilee = 5 presidents to die by the sword starting with Lincoln, most died by the modern day sword, firearms. Also, five presidents died after Lincoln. I do not know if that is suppose to mean something by itself in Bible numerics (5+5), but 10 = TESTIMONY: Law, Account and 55 = Process of going astray by resisting the truth.

    –S-1860 Abraham Lincoln

    –S-1880 James A. Garfield Assassination

    –S-1900 William McKinley Assassination

    –S-1920 Warren G. Harding heart attack (probably poisoned)

    —-1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (stayed too long) died of polio

    –S-1960 John F. Kennedy last Assassination

    There is a lot more then this involved, feel free to seek it out, but the real kicker is this.

    1840 William Henry Harrison elected. First President elected in a year ending with Zero.

    Last President to be born before the Declaration of Independence and first to die in office. From wiki “As he had with Clay, Harrison resisted pressure from other Whigs over patronage; when a group arrived in his office on March 16 to demand the removal of all Democrats from any appointed office, Harrison proclaimed, “So help me God, I will resign my office before I can be guilty of such an iniquity”.” He was guilty of FAR more sin that that in how he treated the Indians.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Tippecanoe

    Like the presidents who had died in office, Reagan was succeeded in office by his vice president,

    George H. W. Bush, which was historically unusual given that Bush was the first incumbent vice president in 152 years

    to assume the presidency by direct election. The last incumbent vice president to win election had been Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison’s immediate predecessor in office.

    152 = AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
    :-)

    • Jeff

      So then it was God who started the slave trade, the Holocaust, and the Spanish Inquisition? Or does He only have the power to do what we think are good things? I guess all the bad things are Obama’s fault?

      • Bob666

        Yo Jeff,
        It takes al kinds to make the word. I guess Mr. Brown has never read the old testament.

      • sam1966

        Another ignorant response from Jeff. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        “The fool has said there is no God within his own heart.”

        Psalms 14:1
        Psalms 53:1

        • Jeff

          And you have no response. So, God freed the slaves but He didn’t first enslave them or allow them to be enslaved? I’m confused because I thought God only makes bad stuff happen where you allow gay marriage and I don’t think that was available in Africa circa 1650.

          • sam1966

            Another ignorant response. Don’t respond unless you have facts or credible sources. Nothing revisionist or atheistc as they have no credibility. Here is another county sheriff that is going against Obama bin Laden’s gun grab:

            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/Kentucky-Sheriff-To-Obama-There-Will-Be-No-Gun-Control-In-My-Country

            Another patriot standing up for our God given 2nd Amendment rights. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “A patriot must be a religious man.”

            Thomas Jefferson

          • Bob666

            LMAO

        • Jeff

          “You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.”

          There’s something deeply Freudian about this. Were you left out of a lot of stuff as a kid? And now you want to turn the tables and be the cool kid with the club the other kids can’t join. Fortunately, you have no power over grownups (God, I pity your students.) so you don’t get to kick anybody out of anything except that faque Samurai Club from high school. Yeah, the popular girls are STILL laughing about that one.

          • sam1966

            Since your post was nothing but a personal attack and you cannot prove men wrong, I’ll ignore it. Here is how a woman explains the 2nd Amendment. Very interesting. If you disagree with her, then you know nothing about the 2nd Amendment:

            http://www.conservativevideos.com/2013/01/survivor-of-1991-shooting-gives impassioned-testimony-against-gun-control/

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “Know God, know peace. No God, no peace.”

            Samurai

          • Jeff

            Again, if you think more guns are the answer, you’re nuts. And if you think your guns will protect you from a Rogue Government, you’re even nuttier. You have a situation where guns are everywhere. Then you say you must have a gun to protect yourself. From what? The very guns you want everywhere. How many assault rifles do you keep in your classroom? Or do you think your Jon Belushi act will scare off a shooter?

            Funny how other countries don’t have these problems. Also, you never answered the question about why machine guns are still illegal for most purposes.

          • sam1966

            Another ignorant posting by Jeff, not worthy of an answer. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “There are no atheists in foxholes.”

            Samurai

          • Bob666

            Jeff,
            Father forgive them, for they know not what they “type” (Luke 23:34).

            We can quote the bible too, but does that make us any more an authority?-No.

  • mattmax

    Excellent article Bob-megadittos. Publicize everywhere! My brother pointed out to me recently that nearly all of our representatives-either house either party may start out as middle class but end up multimillionaires.
    Combat style rifles are necessary these days to appropriately be the well-armed militia Washington wrote about. This is to resist Tyranny!!

    • D. John

      The only information the American people need to no, the main reason for the 2nd amendment is to stop tyranny, so why are we talking about it..

      • kimo3690

        JFK understood the need of malitia BY the American People: Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. – John F. Kennedy

  • James A. Keeton, Sr.

    It is an insult to the Founders and today’s citizens to trot out the same lame lie that the Second Amendment is about hunting. The amendment concerns a milita’s (army of the people) right to arms. The founders knew that a disarmed citizentry are “subjects”, so in their forsight they legislated that this would be protected as a right of all citizens to possess arms against possible tyranny. We and our children will rue the day we allow this right to slip away from us and our future generations. Our responsibility is greater than the effort to stop this injustice. Arise and be counted and effectual.before it’s too late. J. “Prof.”

    • Jeff

      The framers were excellent writers. I guess they forgot to put all that armed insurrection B.S. in the Constitution.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        Jeff, they did put it in the Constituton. They specifically listed the duties (powers) of each branch, and did not grant them the power to lawfully take on another branches duties, not give themselves more powers – that is called “usurpation”.

        As far as “… I guess they forgot to put all that armed insurrection…”. Not sure who you are referring to as insurrectionists.

        We are DEFENDING our legitimate government, the US Constitution. They listed (enumerated) exactly what those in the federal government was allowed to do, created a legally binding oath for each of them to take that they would support and defend, or if president – Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution.

        The states and people then were pretty sure that those who are power hungry would not let that stop them so created the Bill of Rights to specifically list those things that were FORBIDDEN to those who serve in the fed gov to touch lawfully. The 9th Amendment makes it very clear that the natural rights listed there are NOT the only rights that those in the fed gov are forbidden to touch. The 10th amendment makes it extremely clear that the ONLY powers (duties) the fed gov is allowed are those listed – and that is the ONLY area where they are supreme over the states to avoid any conflict. Other then those SPECIFICALLY listed duties, the fed gov lawfully has NO OTHER LAWFUL POWERS; the people and the states control EVERYTHING else.

        If the constitutional measures put into place within the 3 branches of the fed gov broke down because there were too much corruption in each branch and they did NOT check each other as REQUIRED, it then goes to the States.

        Remember, each state was guaranteed a Republican form of government. The state governments run everything that was NOT assigned to the fed gov, and are to hold the corrupt and treasonous individuals within the fed gov accountable.

        If the States forego their duties, that is why the 2nd Amendment is in place – so that the People can bring the corruption under control. That we can see to it that they are arrested and prosecuted if it needs be done by the Militia (the people ARE the militia) themselves to DEFEND our nation.

        George Washington, Farewell Address (caps are mine): “If in the opinion of the PEOPLE the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

        ”The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Thomas Jefferson

        Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

        Thomas Jefferson: “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”

        “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” John Adams

        “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.” John Adams

        “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual”. Thomas Jefferson

        “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men”. Joseph Story

        “Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence…Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” Joseph Story

        • Jeff

          It is ironic that you bring up the 9th Amendment, undoubtedly the most ignored portion of the Bill of Rights (other than the 3rd Amendment). The 9th Amendment has long been scorned by conservatives as a pathway for Judges to “make law” by finding rights hidden therein that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The “right to privacy” was discovered to exist partially due to the 9th Amendment. But I don’t see how it applies to what you’re arguing. You seem to want a mechanism for getting rid of judges who don’t do what you want. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, it is highly unlikely a majority would have voted for such a result. Under what mechanism would you have removed them from the Court? I’m not asking for long-winded soliloquies about liberty written in the 19th Century. This is a very practical question.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            It is actually easy. If it encroaches on someone elses or your right to live, own propery, make your life as you want it – don’t forget the prior two, then it is against the law.

            This means if I speed in my car and I hurt someone I am responsible for that action and the legal consequences. If I build something on my property that fouls the water on yours or the land on yours, I must take it down, and make amends to you and bear the responsibility of cleaning up the water or soil.

            Make sense?

          • Jeff

            So, speeding laws wouldn’t be enforceable in the absence of an accident?

        • Dan

          That is a FANTASTIC reply. It is spelled out very clear. This should be put in a letter to the Federal Senate, House, and Administration…as a reminder that that the American People understand the Constitution, and realize what our government is doing to sidetrack these LAWS.

  • Dan

    Hey, Jeff says. Did you read the same comment that I did (?) from Kansas Bright.
    I saw no mention of Judges.
    Also, you have a number of views that Really makes me believe that you just ‘like to cause’ trouble, a ‘Rabillrouser’, if I may say. You would tell people that the newsprint is ‘pink’, just to start an argumentive conversation.

    • Jeff

      Dan,

      If you knew what you were talking about, I might respond. But then you’d know the word is “rabble.”

      • Dan

        Now I know ,you’re an assh&le ! I don’t know how old you are, but you sound like some punk who has to always be right..So, I mispelled a word !! You’ve never done that have you !! Crawl back into your outhouse and try another site !!! Leave the people alone who WILL fight for Americans, or those of us who have !! Your probably a person like Bill Clinton..a Draft dodger, (if you know what that is). Afraid to get your hands dirty, WORK for a living. I won’t answer any more of your TRASH. If you think you pissed me off….forget it guys like you shouldn’t be allowed to breed.

      • Dan

        Don’t know what I’m talking about ? Just read your answer. Full of arrogance, ignorance, and stupid. Not worth my time…..

        • Jeff

          Good. Go talk to someone who cares.

  • http://PersonalLiberty David Downing

    Bob, excellent letter that sums up my feelings and millions of other American citizens feelings of Washington politics. Taxation without representation to its maximum! Obama is an illegal president, no proof of being a natural born citizen of the USA. He presented a forged and fake birth certificate as real, if there was a real one why would you try to pass off a forged one. My definition of “Birther” ( a natural born citizen of the United States of America that holds the Constitution as the supreme law of the land which includes the qualifications to be President of the USA) of which Obama is not able to prove hence illegal , consequently making any bill, statute and executive order he has signed NULL and VOID. The list of impeachable offenses keeps growing every day but the politicians in charge of doing it are just as corrupt and can’t or won’t do it. His not being a legal president probably means impeachment is out. The only solution I can see is 100,000 – 300,000 bible toting gun clinging citizens meeting in Washington DC on the fourth of July 2013 and get the illegal president by his skinny little neck and evict him from our White House! Then we will fire all of the corrupt senators , congressmen and bureaucrats that have let all of this happen on their watch! The time for typing and texting is over and now it’s time to act!

    • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

      > meeting in Washington DC on the fourth of July 2013

      Don’t count on it, Obama will probably have the Civil War start in May.

    • Jeff

      “The only solution I can see is 100,000 – 300,000 bible toting gun clinging citizens meeting in Washington DC on the fourth of July 2013 and get the illegal president by his skinny little neck and evict him from our White House!”

      I hope the Secret Service is aware of your party plans, you ignorant ape. Bob, is this the kind of dialogue you’re looking for? I’ve noticed a number of calls for violence, assassination, and vigilante action. I’m sure you’re very proud of riling up the crazies.

      • Brian

        Jeff shut your mouth and get out of this forum, you are not welcome.
        Seriously, ADMINISTRATOR: can someone just delete this guys account, register his IP address and disallow his Socialist arse from coming back here to bother us again? I think it’s high time for a “High-Noon” in America. Voting, Checks-and-Balances, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and ALL other sources of redress have already been exhausted with NO discernible change in action by anyone in the “Elected Class”. We can either: type away in frustration until our fingers bleed without an ounce of change to show for it, or we can actually DO something. My vote: DO. BTW Jeff, I could care less what you have to say, or your threats about the SS.

        • Jeff

          I’M the bad guy? You nuts are the ones advocating armed insurrection, assassination, and general stupidity. (offensive comment removed)

          • Brian

            ADMINISTRATOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE MEMBER ABOVE THIS COMMENT. This member has been causing arguments on your site, antagonizing other good members, and generally behaving badly. He even went so far as to state I should be “hung”. I think this calls for his removal ASAP. Thank you.

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Brian (aka Steve, aka Captain America),

            We encourage an open discussion here. While ad hominems are certainly childish and irresponsible and indicative of a small mind, they are not cause for removal. Sometimes we put egregious violators into moderation, but so far Jeff has not fallen to that level (though I admit he’s come close). Please practice civil discussion techniques and you most likely will be rewarded with the same. If it turns out that’s not the case, the situation can be re-examined.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • DANV

            Bob, I made a number of calm responses to this ‘Jeff’, and finally told him I was no longer going to try and be nice to him. He wasn’t worth the effort, He appearantly lives to antagonize people who disagree with him. (Oh, and he is the official spelling police too.)

          • Jeff

            DANV:

            You can spell however you like, but if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you should write in something cognizable as English. I don’t know what post you’re objecting to, but I have written many, many posts that lay out positions agreed to by many more people than the denizens of these blogs. I’m sorry if the presence of contrary opinions bothers you that much. I only insult people personally (a) if they insult me or (b) if their posts merely vent venom and do not make logical points with which one can rationally agree or disagree. Examples are tirades about Muslim, Socialist, Traitor Odumbo or some such nonsense that can pass for intelligent discourse here.

            The current “controversy” stems from my expressing outrage at one lame poster’s call for a meeting on July 4, with guns, culminating in the removal of the President by his neck. Now, I don’t know about you, but that seemed not just crazy to me but a call for armed insurrection and possible assassination. Maybe that’s standard on this site; in the United States, not so much.

          • DANV

            Told you, you’re being ignored.

          • Jeff

            I’m heartbroken. The loonies won’t let me sit at their lunch table.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            I would say from “Jeff’s” comments this account is a paid shill. Hopefully this person is NOT an American citizen or someone legally allowed to be here as they are assisting treasonous actions on the part of those who domestic enemies within the US Government – which, under our laws, makes them committing treason. Treason carries definite punishments from death to years imprisonment and fines.

            I hope for YOUR sake that you are just a “dupe” “Jeff”.

          • Steve

            To all Members of Personal Liberty Digest, stop trying to reason with, or otherwise acknowledge “Jeff”. He is only here to cause trouble, and does not actually add to the debate of what must be done to move our “elected” representatives back to the proper position of representing The People. He is taking us off our topic, and stopping us from moving forward with actionable plans. I’m sure this is his motive. “Jeff” seems to be smart this way, but we should be smarter, by not falling for his trap. The term “TROLL” applies to Jeff in every sense of the term.

            Personally, I did not become a contributing member of this site to debate another Liberal-Progressive-Idealogue. If I wanted to do that, I would go to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, YAHOO, AOL, etc, etc…they have plenty of places for ole’ Jeffey to go and make his case. However, Personal Liberty Digest is for Patriots who believe in Conservatism, National Sovereignty, Individual Liberty, The Founding Documents, our Founding Fathers and above all FREEDOM! We need to make sure we focus on those issues and not have someone infiltrate our ranks to stop that process and advancement.

            With that said, I love the idea of having an “Open carry March” on D.C. this July 4th, but before that on Feb 8, 2013 having an “appetizer” by performing Open Carry Demonstrations in YOUR State! Please see the link
            http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/50-state-open-carry-demonstration-feb.html

            I know across the river from DC, Patriots can Openly Carry in the State of VA without a special permit, as the State permits this Freedom; however, certain localities require the Carrier to possess a CWP. I believe there is a park there called Silverdale’s Waterfront Park. Can we try to set this up for July 4th, 2013? Maybe we can have the potential attendees add a “Will Be in Attendance” comment below this one to get this started.

            Patriotically Yours,
            -Steve

          • Jeff

            Steve, you’re apparently ill equipped for actual thinking, so only read those posts you agree with. I wouldn’t want to cause you any lasting psychological damage by reading something with which you disagree. Keep the set on cartoons and Faux News (same thing).

          • sam1966

            Sook Young and I will try to make it. I’ll be wearing BDU’s and carrying my firearm of choice. Keep some powder dry and keep your firearm within arms reach. Keep up the good fight, fellow patriots! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves Jeff out.

            “It is impossible to rightly rule the world without God and the Bible.”

            George Washington

          • Jeff

            “It is impossible to rightly rule the world without God and the Bible.”

            George Washington

            Faque:

            Would that be everything in the Bible or just the parts you like? Do you really want to stone women for adultery? Even the ones who were raped? How about stoning people for not observing the Sabbath? And I KNOW you don’t follow any of Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” language nor any of the “Caesar” stuff. And you certainly don’t care about feeding or clothing the poor – sounds like socialism. So, what’s left other than changing the name of the Country to the United States of Jesus?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            I agree with you about “Jeff”.

            I am fighting for the arrest, removal from office, and subsequesnt prosecution of all oathbreakers in my state. Prosecution for Treason for any who supported any bill like Patriot Act, NDAA, warrant-less “everything”, UN”s Agenda 21, UN taxing US citizens, UN and foreign laws being used in our ‘constitutonal law only’ courts, etc which is 18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy:… conspire to overthrow, put down, or… the Government of the United States’ – representatives, individuals, businesses, corporations, political parties, etc.

          • D. John

            Their is no arguement about the 2nd amendment, your right to protect yourself from goverment is real now more then ever, that should be very clear. This White House is changing this country to a Socialist regime and there are 67 million people that do not want this. This regime has split this country by race, gender and class, a civil war could be in the future. One reason that won’t happen is because when this country goes into financial melt down that could be in the next few years people will start marching on the Capital, that will start the unrest that the goverment is hoping for (tyranny), The only reason the goverment has not proceeded quicker is because the people have guns, that is the main reason for the 2nd amendment, protect youself from a govermemt gone wild.

          • sam1966

            Ah yes. The personal attack. Classic 5th column strategy when they have no facts, answers, or sources. Ooops! That is every single day. Just ignore Jeff Brian, most of us already ignore him. I can’t because of his lies, hate, rhetoric, and innuendo. In all good conscience, I just can’t let such things be. Here is something that Jeff needs to understand:

            http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NRA-LaPierre/2013/01/23/id/472524#ixzz2Ioi9lhpd

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves Jeff out.

            “Duty is ours, results are God’s”

            John Adams

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            @Jeff,
            You keeps saying things like “you nuts are the ones advocating armed insurrection, assassination, and general stupidity”.

            You are incorrect.

            Let’s first start with “assassinations” which is murder under OUR laws. The only people who are supporting, planning, and carrying out assassinations is Obama and his “adminstration”. There is no way tht he can lawfully give himself the power to assassinate anyone – so he, and his adminstration, are carrying out planned murder weekly.

            “general stupidity”.

            Notice I, and others, am not the one advocating treason against the USA, nor am I the one defending those who have committted treason, murder, mass murder, war crimes, and various other criminal and civil offenses that they can – and WILL – be arrested and prosecuted for. Like what happened in Germany – we will hunt EVERY treasonous person down no matter where in this world they try to hide; and drag them in for prosecution under OUR Constitutional Republics laws. Beyond that, I, and many others on here, can – and do – quote you the laws, penal codes, constituton, founders, framers, etc. that apply to whatever subject we are talking about.

            “armed insurrection”. “Insurrection” – The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

            Our legitimate Constitutional Republic IS the US Constitution. The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. All presidents are held to a ‘higher’ level of committment: They are required to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution. That is a legally binding contract they must make and KEEP for them to get into – and to lawfully stay in the office of the US president. It is a political offense to break it. It is ALSO BOTH a CRIMINAL and a CIVIL offense to break it.

            What we are doing is DEFENDING our legitimate government from *domestic enemies of the USA and treasonous representatives. Laws applying to follow.

            “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of the protection of those Rights.”

            Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

            The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

            The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

            ‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

            The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

            The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

            They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure – political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.

            “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; 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.”

            Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

            Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
            .
            Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

            Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

            Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

            Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

            Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

            The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
            Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

            Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”
            If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or the people, must overrule them”.

            Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

            5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

            5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

            5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
            · Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill
            · UN’s Agenda 21
            · Destruction of the Bill of Rights
            · Executive Orders contrary to the US Constitution
            · NDAA
            · Patriot Act
            · Warrant-less searches (TSA), spying, tracking, etc
            · ETC

            18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

            The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

            Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”
            Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
            Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
            · UN’s Agenda 21
            · *Destruction of the Bill of Rights limitations put upon government officials
            · Executive Orders contrary to the US Constitution
            · Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill
            · Destruction of the Bill of Rights
            · Executive Orders contrary to the US Constitution
            · NDAA
            · Patriot Act
            · Warrant-less searches (TSA), spying, tracking, etc
            · ETC

            Title 18 United States Code Section 926 (Federal law Gun Control Act of 1968) makes it a FEDERAL FELONY for ANYONE to require a gun registration list of ANY kind if at any time said list in any way can or will be used as a gun confiscation list.

            The Preamble to the Bill of Rights shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, which were adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

            Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

            Congress of the United States
            begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
            THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
            RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
            ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

            Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

            Treason. Obama and his adminstration uses the excuse of ‘treaties iwth the UN’ to cover up a lot of his crimes figuring people are too stupid to bother to look them up.

            Let’s start with Treaties, like those we have with the UN.

            Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

            All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

            Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

            November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:
            The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine)

            Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
            Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

            The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919.

            Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

            United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

            In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

            In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
            “No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

            U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…” (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)

            On to Treason and other crimes:
            Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

            Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
            · Those assisting in the cover-up and implementation of Agenda 21, supporting the UN laws applying here, etc

            18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
            · That would be the Senate, congress, and Boehner, Holder, Pelosi, H. Clinton, and the rest of that adminstration. Don’t forget that both Bush’s, and Clinton and thier adminstrations also committed these crimes and need arrest and prosecution.
            18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
            · That would be “change” and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel.
            o Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
            When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.
            o “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}
            · Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.

            18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

            {Fast and Furious – Press Releases about it in EARLY 2009, David Ogden the talking head for Obama; Benghazi, Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA – using UN laws, UN here to ‘monitor’ OUR USA elections, UN taxing us, UN Military on USA soil}

            Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or
            Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
            Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

            {Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA, over the US Military – Obama, Panetta, Dempsey. UN & NATO with the assistance of this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush 1 administration…}
            {The UN does NOT have any authority over the USA, nor does anyone serving in any branch of our legitimate government have the power to give them any authority over the USA – Not to decide OUR gun laws, tax us, watch our elections, use our natural resources, put Agenda 21 here in the USA, use our military and any of “our” Generals, etc or representatives who allow it are committing treason – that would be Panetta, Dempsey, and Obama, Holder, (plus H. Clinton, J.Napolitano, David Ogden, N. Pelosi, etc) who said they do NOT represent the USA, they represent the UN. Obama said in a letter to Boehner, Panetta and Dempsey in front of the senate – on video. Foreign laws and Shariah laws used in US courts

          • Jeff

            Your citing all those Supreme Court cases makes my point. The words in the Constitution are made real by Supreme Court decisions. If the Supreme Court decides that “bear arms” means hunting rifles only, then that’s what it means regardless what you think of the decision. I maintain that talk of a July 4th “get together” at which the President will be “dragged from the White House by his skinny neck” is dangerously close to advocating armed insurrection and/or assassination AND is extraordinarily stupid talk. So sue me.

          • Frank Kahn

            An ARMED INSURRECTION is exactly what the second amendment guarantees us the ability to use in the event that it becomes necessary.

            I would find it highly unlikely that you could find enough insane anti-gun justices to actually make a moronic statement like you put forth. And, since we cannot vote them off the supreme court there is only one set of circumstances that can remedy such a violation of the constitution. Well actually two, first demand that congress pass an amendment stating the truth (right to bear arms to defend against unconstitutional actions by our government) or Item 1. ARMED INSURRECTION.

            Now, Jeff, if you are really so incapable of understanding something as simple as the words in the second amendment, I suggest that you either get educated or stop trying to make adult decisions.

            If the pathetic excuses for humans that are running our government cant act like adults then they deserve to be ousted, by lethal force if necessary. And, yes, Obama would be the primary target at this time. He has stepped over the line in his insane desire to take our rights away.

            It is very simple, logical and rational, if I am carrying a gun and you try to take it away from me, you will die for your criminal act. You, and all the anti-gun morons need to just step back, take a deep breath, think rationally for a change and leave us alone.

            Hows that for a calm reasonable description of the facts?

          • Jeff

            Frank, you needn’t be such a condescending boor. I can understand lots of things – my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and yours included. My disagreement with you is not based on a lack of understanding. I’ve read all the quotes from the early 19th Century, but we are not bound by those. We are bound by the words of the 2nd Amendment. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s most recent decision, but it is the law. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a personal right, although I believe that decision is limited to Federal jurisdictions. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will rule the same way concerning a State’s ability to regulate guns.

            The more important question is what limitations, if any, are to be placed on the term “bear arms.” My example was overly simplistic, but within the hypothetical it is nonetheless correct. Machine guns have been outlawed for most purposes since the 30s. I am not sure if the Supreme Court has addressed this issue head on, but it can certainly decide that machine guns are not included in the weapons “protected” by the 2nd Amendment.
            Logically, it can then also decide that Congress can lawfully ban semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity clips, and even cheap handguns. I’m not saying it will rule that way, but it can and that would be the operative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment until changed.

            As far as your “ruling” that insurrection is the basis of the 2nd Amendment, I disagree and I daresay your support for such a proposition, outside the bubble of these blogs, would be tiny. If the Amendment’s purpose was the quick formation of a militia to fight invading Canadians because we had no standing army, that is a bit different from giving every such “militia” member some kind of 2nd Amendment veto over every decision the Government makes. It;s a Constitution; not a suicide pact.

          • Bob666

            Very well said Jeff.

          • Frank Kahn

            Hello, Bob666, you must be just as ignorant as Jeff. Nothing he said in his reply to me makes any reasonable sense. His assumptions and assertions are all hyperbole and not worthy of even consideration, let alone praise.

          • Bob666

            Hello Frank,
            “you must be just as ignorant as Jeff”,

            Opinions are often based on facts but facts are never based on opinions, yours, mine or Jeff’s. Both of you have a different interpretation of the second amendment and if it were entirely clear, there would be no debate taking place right now.

            There is one thing that I agree with Jeff on and that many who would side with you take the first half of the second amendment to heart and virtually ignore the first half that speaks of a well regulated militia. In any case, you and I will probably disagree on this, but I will not insult you by calling you names or telling you that you are any less of American than I am.

          • Frank Kahn

            Actually it is the first part that is ignored and or twisted by anti-gun advocates that makes our pro-gun side important. It is the meaning of the word Militia that is being incorrectly interpreted by Jeff and the ignorant people in power. Unfortunately, I am no longer qualified to be a part of the militia due to my age and disability, however all my younger friends are in the constitutional militia that have the right to bear (any kind of) arms. Well regulate militia does not mean the National Guard, which is actually currently an extension of the regular services.

            There is no discussion needed on the terms in the amendment, and there is not now nor will there ever be (without an amendment changing the second) any legal authority to restrict the ownership of any type of arms in this country.

            Personally, I think it is sad that so many citizens follow the lying and subversion of the current government administration in this matter. I think that it is appalling that we will be forced to kill other citizens because of their desire to destroy our freedom. I do not, however, even or a second, consider the possibility that I will ever give into the tyranny that is being pushed without bloodshed.

            Jeff, and others seem to think that it is all insanity. Well his opinion is just that, an opinion and as such is worthless.

            Your statement that opinion is based on fact is false. Most opinions are based on emotional views and facts are mostly discarded. What is being pushed as facts by Obama, Biden and the rest of the ignorant anti-gun people is nothing more than hype and superstition. True statistics support the fact that guns for protection decrease violent crime in almost all cases. Strict gun control and banning of weapons has been shown to allow an increase in violent gun related crimes in several countries. High capacity magazines only make it a little more work to fire 100 rounds, the actual difference in time would be about 20 seconds, not enough time to do anything to save yourself. Now, those are facts, not my opinion. My opinion is that Jeff, and all the rest like him, are ignorant of the truth and dont deserve to be listened to until they use some facts instead of baseless opinions. And my opinion is based on the facts just stated and evidence of his lack of supporting facts for his opinions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Nice answer! Factual also!

          • Bob666

            Yo Frank,
            “all my younger friends are in the constitutional militia that have the right to bear (any kind of) arms. Well regulate militia does not mean the National Guard, which is actually currently an extension of the regular services”.

            That sound just like Opinion to me as that is not clearly outlined in the second amendment.

            “Your statement that opinion is based on fact is false. Most opinions are based on emotional views and facts are mostly discarded”

            While I do agree with your statement regarding emotion, that is not what I said. Opinion are often based on facts is what I said and often someone’s interpretation of the facts and that is why this debate continues.

            “My opinion is that Jeff, and all the rest like him, are ignorant of the truth and don’t deserve to be listened to until they use some facts instead of baseless opinions. And my opinion is based on the facts just stated and evidence of his lack of supporting facts for his opinions”.

            So lets agree that opinions are often based on someone interpretation of the facts that are often influenced by emotional outburst?

          • Jeff

            Yes, Frank, you know everything and are always right. Everyone who disagrees is just too stupid to follow your logic.

          • Frank Kahn

            your attempt to discredit by ridicule is noted. I did not call anyone stupid, I said ignorant which is a very different term. I also said that your opinion is worthless unless or until you give some form of facts from which you based it.

          • Jeff

            “An ARMED INSURRECTION is exactly what the second amendment guarantees us the ability to use in the event that it becomes necessary.

            I would find it highly unlikely that you could find enough insane anti-gun justices to actually make a moronic statement like you put forth. And, since we cannot vote them off the supreme court there is only one set of circumstances that can remedy such a violation of the constitution. Well actually two, first demand that congress pass an amendment stating the truth (right to bear arms to defend against unconstitutional actions by our government) or Item 1. ARMED INSURRECTION.

            Now, Jeff, if you are really so incapable of understanding something as simple as the words in the second amendment, I suggest that you either get educated or stop trying to make adult decisions.

            If the pathetic excuses for humans that are running our government cant act like adults then they deserve to be ousted, by lethal force if necessary. And, yes, Obama would be the primary target at this time. He has stepped over the line in his insane desire to take our rights away.

            It is very simple, logical and rational, if I am carrying a gun and you try to take it away from me, you will die for your criminal act. You, and all the anti-gun morons need to just step back, take a deep breath, think rationally for a change and leave us alone.

            Hows that for a calm reasonable description of the facts?”

            Frank:

            I believe it was this post that was the source of the ridicule. If you believe this post is an attempt at rational dialogue, I have nothing to say. Suffice it to say your interpretation of the words in the 2nd Amendment is the truth for you; it is not THE TRUTH. I am certain someone with your superior intellect should easily be able to understand a mere human. I still think it’s crazy to suggest that the 2nd Amendment is there to permit for armed insurrection. Is that the purpose of a militia? Or was it designed to substitute for a standing army in the event of foreign invasion?

            Regardless what quotes you come up with from the late 18th or early 19th centuries, no modern Supreme Court is going to interpret the 2nd Amendment as broadly as you suggest. The founders set up a government with three branches. I see no veto given to individual militia groups who don’t like something the government does and who decide they have enough guns to topple it. Maybe I was absent the day you gave the guest lecture, but probably 95% of Americans would find your idea both nutty and comical.

            IT IS A CONSTITUTION; NOT A SUICIDE PACT.

          • Frank Kahn

            There is no INTERPRETATION of the second amendment needed or allowed. Your opinion on what you THINK they meant is not supportable by fact or documentation.

            The Supreme court cannot change the meaning of the words, nor are they allowed to decide what an American English word means.

            It states that we have the inalienable right to bear arms (all inclusive no exceptions) for the purpose of maintaining the FREEDOM and LIBERTIES of all people. It does not say to protect the GOVERNMENT from foreign invaders. It does not say to HUNT and provide food for your family. It does not say TARGET PRACTICE for fun. It says for us to be able to act as an ARMED MILITIA. Yes, it is not a suicide pact, and we will not make a suicide pact with OBAMA and his corrupt administration. Nor will we make one with the congress or supreme court. Suicide is what you choose, that is your decision, we will help assist in the suicides of all anti-gun activists that insist on dying.

            England citizens committed suicide when they allowed their corrupt government to confiscate all their weapons and so did Australia. Government propaganda and lies about guns and how they are bad and need to be removed is pure poppycock.

            The lies about what percentage of U.S. citizens support banning guns is easy to disprove. You are in the minority Jeff, not us.

            You want to die so bad you will assist in trying to take our guns? Are you insane, or do you just like the thought of dying for an illegal and unconstitutional act?

            99% of all pro-gun people dont want to have an armed rebellion just because they disagree with some minor government policy, they are just prepared to stop this tyrannical gun grab that is currently holding so many politicians attention.

            The only way that the government can enforce gun confiscation is with military action which is also against the law in this country.

            You refuse to give any sign of adult human reason in this discussion. You are an ignorant toady of the government. The gun banning laws are unconstitutional and therefor illegal and do not have to be obeyed by ANY CITIZEN.

            If you should decide that you want to discuss this with actual verifiable facts, then maybe it wont just be your ignorant opinion against provable facts shown by statistics worldwide.

            And, it does not matter that you think it is insane to protect our freedom from the likes of you. You will lose!!!!

          • Jeff

            Frank, I must admit I was wrong. I thought you were sane.

          • Frank Kahn

            Hmmm, argument by ridicule? Dont have any facts to support your theories?

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Just ignore ‘him’, ‘his’ responses. That is what I am doing now.

      • sam1966

        Is this any worse than your name calling and attacking someone that believes in God, Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, and our Christian founding? Why don’t you search the prior threads about how Bob Livingston answered Robert Smith. He may have been banned by now. Neeeeed to look in the mirror and learn to take as much as you dish out. Here is something for you to look at Jeff:

        http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/23/does-un-arms-trade-treaty-figure-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.”

        Ronald Reagan

        • Bob666

          Sam,

          You mention that you have to believe in god to be a patriot and I SAY Horse Hockey. Some of the most moral and ethical people I know are Jews, Muslims, Buddhist and yes Atheist. I would match their patriotism and allegiance to this country right up against you any day of the week.

          • sam1966

            What? I thought you said before that you would not answer any of my posts which you previously posted on this thread. I guess that you can’t be trusted to keep your word. If you can’t keep your word here, how can you keep your word to protecting this great country. You said about these people being different faiths than mine and how they are more patriotic? Ha, ha, ha, ha! Now that is funny. If you said someone like Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc., then I would have agreed with you. But alas! Just another personal attack from the 5th column. Why don’t you post the names of these people and I’ll look them up. If you are right, I’ll concede defeat. If not, then be prepared for my reaction. Here is something about the COOTUS committing treason by arming our enemies:

            http://www.lastresistance.com/1110/obama-officially-arms-radical-islamists/

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “A patriot must be a religious man.”

            Thomas Jefferson

        • Jeff

          So, you think it’s proper to post an “invitation” to people to bring their guns to a July 4th gathering for the purpose of grabbing the President “by his skinny neck and dragging him from the White House.” Is that the kind of civics you teach in your “classroom”? And I’M the bad guy for pointing out how crazy that kind of talk is? What % of the American people, indeed of Romney voters, would endorse such a sentiment? Damn few, that’s for sure.

          But you’ve got guns so you can take on the Government. About as likely as you are to do it with Jon Belushi’s sword!!!

          • Bob666

            Jeff,
            Jon Belushi did comedy, this guy, by what ever name he is using today believe he is the real deal.

          • Jeff

            Maybe, but I’d like to see his “Samurai Teacher” routine where he takes the kid’s paper, throws it in the air, and makes confetti of it with 1 swing!

          • Bob666

            Jeff,
            while screaming like the history professor in Back to school with Rodney Dangerfield?

          • Jeff

            Perfect

          • Bob666

            OK,
            So his next screen name should be “Bobcat Belushi”

      • brotherpatriot

        Jeff…I have listened to your nonsense long enough w/out responding but now I will say my piece.

        You are absolutely incorrect. The VAST majority of TRUE American’s would agree with Frank Kahn’s assessment. Do note the TRUE American’s reference. These people are those who understand what the Constitution stands for & what it represents. The 2nd amendment is not there to guarantee our gun rights, the Constitution already recognizes that we have our guns. That amendment is there to warn the government to not tread upon us or infringe upon that right for we have EVERY right to rise up in an armed insurrection against the A-holes who are attempting to take our Freedom & Liberty away.

        The militia is the LAST line of defense against government tyranny. Why on earth would we allow the government to take our “teeth”? (Take our guns.) If we the people allowed them to do such a thing then shame on all of us. Just because the current A-Holes in Congress (criminals) & the rest of our “elected” government “leaders” get together and plot against the American people’s rights, pass “laws” that slowly erode our freedom & liberty…just because these people do & say these things, doesn’t make them right, even if they pass unconstitutional laws. They have & are going WAY to far down the path of the UN’s wish for a NWO. We the militia are here as the final check & balance against such criminal behavior that has and is occurring.

        I am a former Navy SEAL. I swore my oath to support the Constitution & due to my love of Family, God & Country…I WILL bring my weapons to bear against anyone who threatens the safety of my fellow countrymen…including against federal agents who are backed by our current criminals in Washington.

        For the past 4 years I have been learning the truth of this world & our governments History. Actions leave footprints in History. If you follow the money trail, the death trail & the family’s connected to this very long History of criminal activity…you begin to learn the truth of this world. Example…the body count surrounding the Clintons. Power draws the criminal mind like moths to a flame. We really need to force a complete purge of who is in charge in Washington because of what History tells us is the truth regarding these people. We need to replace virtually all of them with people who have served the Constitution loyally. There are people out there who qualify & who are not attached to the secret societies who have been following the same common Agenda I have been speaking of.

        I believe Jeff, is here to cause as much problems on this site as he’s able. To “high jack” & cause disruption if he’s able. I recommend people just ignore his posts, do not comment upon his topics of discussion, do not give him any energy/fuel for future postings. I know others posting here are worthy of similar treatment. I will set the example & swear not to respond to any further of Jeff’s posts.

        There is far to much evidence out there to support what I say about these A-holes who we have in Washington. Congress votes their own pay raises…criminal. Congress have no term limits…criminal. Congress exempt themselves from laws that the common citizen has to follow…criminal. Congress vote their own medical, retirement, and privileges while exempting themselves from Obamacare, etc…criminal. POTUS isn’t a natural born citizen…criminal. We have high ranking members of our “elected” who attend the Bilderberg meetings in direct violation of the Logan Act…criminal. A president who advocates the sinking of the USS Liberty & murder of all hands…criminal. The “pulling” of all THREE 9/11 buildings…criminal. (If they rigged building 7 then they did the other 2 as well. The 5 dancing Isreali’s of the Mossad who were in place filming the event. Mossad works for the Rothschild Zionists.) The Sandy Hook Shooting Hoax…criminal. (It didn’t go down the way we are told…web sites going up DAYS in advance shows premeditation…criminal.) The MSM’s support of all this…criminal. (They are not a free press…this site, Alex Jones, WND…these outlets are our free press now. Alternative news sources are taking most of CNN’s ratings, etc…American’s are waking up to these truths I speak of.) There is sooooo much more criminal actions taking place that I can’t even begin to touch upon the truth here…suffice it to say, most are indeed connected to the secret societies that I’ve spoken of.)

        Jeff…please post your witty, nonsense reply to this message for I’ll show what a TRUE American does when confronted by your idiocy. I’ll ignore you unless you pose a direct threat to me & mine…then if you do, I’ll squash you like the bug you are & any other out there like you. You have every right to say what you wish because the Constitution backs that right and I support the Constitution. At the same time people like me have every right to ignore you unless you cross that line I speak of.

        You & everyone like you have been warned.

        God Bless this great Nation. May we return as a Nation to moral & Godly living. We can’t do this until we are brutally honest with ourselves & reveal the Truth of what’s happening across the world. There IS an Agenda in place & we the armed American’ Militia are our last line of defense. Never EVER give up your gun rights…because after they take our guns HISTORY tells us that a pile of bodies is the result.

        I am a Oathkeeper and I love Family, God & Country. I & other’s like me are here for American’s all across the world…for you don’t have to be a American to be a “American” if you have the right attitude. It is indeed a mindset that right now is under assault by our “elected” leaders. It’s unbelievable to me that we have let this go now for so long. Wake up to the Truth because indeed, the Truth will set us all free.

        It’s time to address it ALL, my brothers & sisters. Don’t be afraid…live free or die trying.

        • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

          > That amendment is there to warn the government to not tread upon us or
          > infringe upon that right

          It should also remind us of what Jesus said to the people following him.

          Luke 22

          ” 35And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

          36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

          He told them this, knowing they already had 2 swords. You are not suppose to let them throw you to the lions. You slay the people that would think to do it to you and protect your family and borders.

          We have lost sight of the reason this nation was founded, to promote Jesus to the rest of the world. This is what they reminded the King of in the DOI, in a mocking sort of way.

          Unfortunately, God judged this nation already and I finally figured out what the Curse of the Zeroes means in whole.

          We already know things have basically gone to hell after President Reagan left office, well, God’s Bible numbers already tells you about our leaders. I thought I would mention it because you mentioned the secret societies. They have not hidden anything from the God they do not believe in.

          http://biblenumbersforlife.com/tag/numerics/

          VAIN RELIGION SETS US BACK…

          #40 probation period was over with Reagan, 120 years from Lincoln to Reagan. President Ronald Reagan loved God and God loved him.

          Number 41 MAN’S RULE(S)

          1st Bush is when we start making our rules without God’s hand.

          Why will the USA fail and be split apart?

          WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE…

          42 EVIL MAN
          43 HUMILIATION
          44 MURDERERS: Secret World

          #42 Clinton aka Slick Willie aka disbarred lawyer, adulterer, rapist, and liar

          #43 Bush and how he left office

          #44 Obama and the Kenites.

          • Jeff

            “Oh Brother” is the correct sentiment.

          • sam1966

            SSDD, eh Jeffy? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.”

            Thomas Jefferson
            Letter to Benjamin Waterhouse

          • Bob666
          • http://naver samurai

            We think you need a life. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “The Constitution, a system which without the finger of God never could have been suggested.”

            Alexander Hamilton

        • Bob666

          To Bro,
          “VAST majority of TRUE American’s”

          please define “True American”.

        • Jeff

          Dear Bug Squasher:

          You’re a very angry person I don’t really care to converse with. I hope you and your gun are very happy together up until it causes a tragedy in your family. Oh, and the armed insurrection business is still nuts.

          • sam1966

            Another personal attack from Jeffy! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…so help me God.”

            Oath to enter the military

            *Notice it says so help me God. Atheists don’t count.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          First, Thank you for your service to your country.

          I am sorry that domestic enemies and treasonous scum are in place in the fed gov and in some states. That is OUR fault, for while you were serving in other palces we did not stop the corrupt ones. Naivety is not a good excuse.

          Please know that most of us will fight (not as well as you I am sure) beside you for our country, our LEGITIMATE government. I have been pressuring the Governor and state AJ to start arresting oath breakers per the laws. (I know, asking oath breakers to do an act is … “crazy”. But someone has to stand up and let them know that WE know they are corrupt, and we want ALL oath breakers to be arrested and prosecuted.

          I drafted this one for Feinsteins arrest and hopefully subsequent prosecution for her crimes. It is 27 pages so I will put only some here.
          Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

          5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

          5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

          5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

          18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

          The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

          Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

          Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

          I have not verified this law, but I have the rest: Title 18 United States Code Section 926 (Federal law Gun Control Act of 1968) makes it a FEDERAL FELONY for ANYONE to require a gun registration list of ANY kind if at any time said list in any way can or will be used as a gun confiscation list.

          Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

          The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

          The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

          The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

          ‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

          The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised. {more for the courts then law enforcement}

          The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

          They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure – political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.

          “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; 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.”

          Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

          Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
          .
          Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

          Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

          Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

          Require, Requirement, Required: Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. “To claim or ask for by right and authority; That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

          Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

          The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
          Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

      • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

        Impressive, Kansas Bright.

  • Bob666

    Well Sam 1966,
    “What? I thought you said before that you would not answer any of my posts which you previously posted on this thread. I guess that you can’t be trusted to keep your word”

    Is it Sam or Samurai? while I suspected some mental issues, this clearly proves my suspicion that you are like a needy child in search of attention. Let me make a couple of suggestions for future screen names:

    Voices in my head,
    Conflicted,
    Argues with Self (think-dances with wolves),
    Desperately seeking validation,

    I guess that we all need to pay attention to the self righteous diatribe and the Asian characters for future reference in your future screen names.

    this will really be the last exchange with you.

  • T.H.

    Great letter, and thought was provoked. To make things simple, the American Public should demand:
    1. Anyone running for Public Office should under go a deep background search the same as our military & Ambassador Corp.s have to do. This would be deeper than the Brady requirements, and at their expense and public peril if they fail.
    2. That every two years they under-go a formal psych evaluation to prove their own competency to hold public office. Again, should they fail the testing, they would be completely financially liable for all costs.
    3. That when they sign any bills, they can clearly state all the major provisions of the legislation prior to a final vote.
    4. That when Federal Budgets languish for any reason they fore-go their salaries until such time the budgets are formally resolved.
    5. Give the American Public statements in their own words that they understand that Social Security, Medi-Care, and Medi-caid are NOT Entitlements, but contracts for future benefits that the American worker was forced to participate in under penalty of law.

    Now would this ever happen? Sure when the Sun rises in the west & sets in the east. Diane et al would take away our Rights, force enhanced ‘proof of innocence’ testing, along with mental competence tests and reporting in order to limit our Rights, then they live by he same rules. They give up their armed guards that are paid for with Public Money.

    Until Americans demand that that their elected officials at ALL levels abide by the same rules they would impose on us, the insanity will continue to continue.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      First, why don’t we hold them accountable? The oath is a legally binding contract to break it is not only a political offense, but is also both a criminal and civil offense. I have drawn up a demand for the investigation, arrest, and subsequenst prosecution of Feinstein for oath breaking and treason against the USA and the State of California.

      Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

      The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

      The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

      ‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

      The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

      The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

      They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure – political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.

      “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; 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.”

      Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

      Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
      .
      Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

      Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

      Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

      Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

      Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

      The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
      Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

      Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

      5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

      5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

      5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
      · Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill
      · UN’s Agenda 21
      · Destruction of the Bill of Rights
      · Executive Orders contrary to the US Constitution
      · NDAA
      · Patriot Act
      · Warrant-less searches (TSA), spying, tracking, etc
      · ETC

      18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

      The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”
      Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
      · UN’s Agenda 21
      · *Destruction of the Bill of Rights limitations put upon government officials
      · Executive Orders contrary to the US Constitution
      · Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill
      · Destruction of the Bill of Rights
      · Executive Orders contrary to the US Constitution
      · NDAA
      · Patriot Act
      · Warrant-less searches (TSA), spying, tracking, etc
      · ETC

      Title 18 United States Code Section 926 (Federal law Gun Control Act of 1968) makes it a FEDERAL FELONY for ANYONE to require a gun registration list of ANY kind if at any time said list in any way can or will be used as a gun confiscation list.

      The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it very clear that they place MORE limits on the federal government. It shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, which were adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

      Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

      Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
      RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
      ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

      Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

      The California Oath of Office is pretty all-incluseive:
      Art 20 Misc Subjects, Sec 3: Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

      “I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
      “And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
      ________________________________________________________________

      (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

      And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.

      Basically she lied, surprise, surpirse – right?

      Treason:
      Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
      · Those who implement(ed/ing) and/or assisting/assisted in the cover-up and implementation of UN’s Agenda 21
      · Those who implement(ed/ing) and/or assisting/assisted in the cover-up of Fast and Furious
      · Those who implement(ed/ing) and/or assisting/assisted in the cover-up of Benghazi
      · UN military forces on US soil
      · UN “overseeing” US Elections
      · Corporations, businesses, government bureaucracies, individuals assisting, supporting, implementing UN’s Agenda 21

      18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
      · That would be the Senate, congress, and Boehner, Holder, Pelosi, H. Clinton, and the rest of that administration. Don’t forget that both Bush’s, and Clinton and their administrations also committed these crimes and need arrest and prosecution.

      18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
      · Fast and Furious – Press Releases about it in EARLY 2009, David Ogden the talking head for Obama;
      · Benghazi,
      · Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA –
      · Using UN laws,
      · UN here to ‘monitor’ OUR USA elections,
      · UN taxing USA,
      · UN Military on USA soil
      · Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA, over the US Military – Obama, Panetta, Dempsey. UN & NATO with the assistance of this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush 1 administration…
      o The UN does NOT have any authority over the USA, nor does anyone serving in any branch of our legitimate government have the power to give them any authority over the USA – Not to decide OUR gun laws, tax us, watch our elections, use our natural resources, put Agenda 21 here in the USA, use our military and any of “our” Generals, etc. Any representatives who assist or allow it are committing treason – Panetta, Dempsey, and Obama & his administration, Holder, plus H. Clinton, J.Napolitano, David Ogden, N. Pelosi, etc – who said they do NOT represent the USA, they represent the UN.
      o Obama said in a letter to Boehner, Panetta and Dempsey in front of the senate – on video.
      o Foreign laws and Shariah laws being used in US courts
      · Implementing UN laws within the USA
      · Implementing taxes of US citizens and those legally allowed to be here to be paid to the UN
      · UN’s Agenda 21
      · Patriot Act
      · NDAA
      · Warrantless Searches, Tracking Spying of any type, etc
      · TSA in our airports, train stations bus stations, on our roads, at sporting events, etc

      Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or
      · That would be “change” and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel.
      o Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
      When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.
      o “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}
      Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.

      Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
      Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…
      · That would be “change” and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel.
      o Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
      When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.
      o “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}
      Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.
      · Giving the UN ‘authority’ over the USA, over the US Military – Obama, Panetta, Dempsey. UN & NATO with the assistance of this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush 1 administration…
      o The UN does NOT have any authority over the USA, nor does anyone serving in any branch of our legitimate government have the power to give them any authority over the USA – Not to decide OUR gun laws, tax us, watch our elections, use our natural resources, put Agenda 21 here in the USA, use our military and any of “our” Generals, etc. Any representatives who assist or allow it are committing treason – that would be Panetta, Dempsey, and Obama & his adminstration, Holder, plus H. Clinton, J.Napolitano, David Ogden, N. Pelosi, etc – who said they do NOT represent the USA, they represent the UN.
      o Obama said in a letter to Boehner, Panetta and Dempsey in front of the senate – on video.
      o Foreign laws and Shariah laws being used in US courts
      · Implementing UN laws within the USA
      · Implementing taxes of US citizens and those legally allowed to be here to be paid to the UN
      · UN’s Agenda 21
      · Patriot Act
      · NDAA
      · Warrantless Searches, Tracking Spying of any type, etc
      · TSA in our airports, train stations bus stations, on our roads, at sporting events, etc

      Then there is this:
      Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654: Breaks the militia down in three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are;
      · The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,
      · The unorganized militia and
      · The regular army.

      It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied *male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
      (*It encompasses every able-bodied person that can serve in the military)

      “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of the protection of those Rights.”

      Ask yourself this: If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      I am sending it to the Governor, the Calif state AJ, all Sheriffs, all the congress, all the senate, and whatever news media I can get to post it – most that I used to write for and research for tell me that what I write is too “contoversial”. Guess the laws of our land are controversial – or they are traitors to the USA.

    • http://www.obamasucks.tv John Brown

      > but contracts for future benefits that the American worker was forced to
      > participate in under penalty of law.

      Then it is time to break the contract, go bankrupt, and give back to the people all the money they paid into it. Because the people receive far more in benefits then if they had left the money in the bank at 5% interest. I call that entitlement, especially if rich people or working people can’t get their fair share out.

      It is a Ponzi scheme designed to make people glad they are poor and it is not my fault that people people invested with Bernie or the Uncle, no matter what their noble intentions. It does not mean I or my children have to jump off the cliff with them.

      Besides, it will not mean much after the coming Civil War and then the one world government that will follow.

  • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

    A word we all need to start to fully understand & implement…

    NULLIFICATION.

    It’s our magic sword.

    God Bless.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      I disagree. Nullification is a start. Arrest and prosecutions is the finish.

  • T.H.

    This is a shotgun approach to replies that followed my response.

    >>KS B.- Your citations are great as they offer easily accessed starting points of reference. I think the base answer lies in the fact that the common voter is ignorant of issues that do not immediately effect them as too many folks were trying to keep their jobs, homes, etc. with the deck stacked against them. The words of the Oath of Office have different meanings to the individuals taking it; remember Bill’s famous “… what do you mean by ‘if’?” statement to the House during the Impeachment Hearings? Should the current incumbent be able state [with a straight face] that they believed they were carrying out what they believed was within their Oath within the scope of their background, then that pretty much gets them off the hook. The bowing and scraping to the UN regarding treaty validity, consented to by the Senate or not as binding is discussed in HELLER & McDONALD. The Justices cite to treaties that the U.S. did not affirm, but still held some force of law within the U.S.

    >>J.B.- No matter how you look at Soc. Sec. and Medi Care programs, they are nothing more than contracts for future benefits. The closest equivalent is a life insurance policy. The programs were based on solid doctrine, and NOT intended to be used to balance the federal budget, be the sole source of retirement income or doled out as fully vested to recent immigrants or those that did not pay into them. Remember, banks were posting 10-18% returns on investments until the latest crash which reduced their income along with the programs incoming cash. The use of ‘entitlement’ is designed to invoke the same reaction as ‘assault weapon’ or the confusion of semi auto v. full auto the Press maintains. If you have or can cast a stigma, then you have a story.

    >>BP- Nullification. A great idea, and some states have the means to it within their laws. There are a lot of steps to accomplish within those states that allow it. You have to get a super majority (66%+ of voters and legislators) to get things rolling, along with some seriously deep pockets to bankroll the effort, then there are no guarantees of success. All the states should have the means to recall their Congress-critters, but impeachment is serious and costly process.

    Please understand, this is NOT meant as attacks on your views, but some questions that remain. There is the beginnings of sane discussion within your replies, and this thread. Again, there are too many folks that have time, if not a lifetime of service to this great country that see danger ahead if the present course is continued. The answers lay within the country’s laws and as citizens we have the responsibility to bring about change; this was done in the 1960′s most recently and can be done again.

    • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

      Excellent, T.H.

      It’s a pleasure to read your post. Very informative and I’m in agreement with the majority of it. All of us have a piece of the puzzle & together we can put together the picture.

      I strongly believe that the ones responsible for the bloody coup when JFK died, are still firmly installed within our highest levels of the government. I believe that a great terminology to use for them is, Rothschild Zionists. I also believe that JFK was still one of them…just a different faction of them. His way without war would not profit anywhere near as much as the wars do for the banking elite who are responsible for so much suffering in our world. With their use of the CIA & other differently named organizations but who all follow the same common Agenda…the results of the wars & such are from their efforts.

      Only the truth, supporting the Constitution & a return to Godly living w/out secrecy…can we restore this great Nation

      God Bless your work, T.H.

      • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

        Oh, & I say that about JFK because one of his earlier speeches he was referring to having the UN as the only military force on the earth as they put into place the NWO.

        Sorry…but that to me speaks of just a different faction of the Rothschild Zionists. Some of us know the history of JFK’s father & such.

        However, it is completely possible the JFK may have felt the patriotism of the American people & begun to try and reverse the course he/we were on. I have heard he may have been about to release more information beyond what he said when he made his famous speech ending with, “Man will be what he was born to be…Free & Independent”.

        God Bless & always great reads here, Bob!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      “The words of the Oath of Office have different meanings to the individuals taking it;”
      Your “remember Bill – depends on what the meaning of “is” is- about the meaning of words just shows what the person who was being impeached would lie about – other then Obama – B Clinton is known as the most famouse (infamous) liar in this century. Thre are NOT mulitple meanings.

      Let’s start with the legally binding presidential oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      “I”: yourself.

      “do”: perform, execute do some work.

      “Solemnly”: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

      “swear”: to assert as true or promise under oath. to put to an oath : administer an oath to. to bind by an oath.

      “that”: used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time.

      “will”: used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent.

      “faithfully”: true to one’s word, promises, vows. firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty. true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original.

      “execute”: to carry out according to its terms; to fulfill the command or purpose of. To put into effect; carry out. To perform; do.

      “the”: To state the precise meaning of. To describe the nature or basic qualities of. To specify distinctly.

      “Office”: a special duty, charge, or position conferred by an exercise of governmental authority and for a public purpose : a position of authority to exercise a public function and to receive whatever emoluments may belong to it. a position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority. something that one ought to do or must do : an assigned or assumed duty, task, or role.

      “of”: used to indicate cause, motive, occasion, or reason.

      “President”: an official chosen to preside over a meeting or assembly. the chief officer of an organization (as a corporation or institution) usually entrusted with the direction and administration of its policies. an elected official having the position of chief of state.

      “United States”: a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific.

      “and”: used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses

      “to”: (used for expressing motion or direction toward a point, person, place, or thing approached and reached. used for expressing contact or contiguity.

      “best”: of the highest quality, excellence, or standing. Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent.

      “my”: of or relating to me or myself especially as possessor, agent, object of an action.

      “ability”: power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc. competence in an activity or occupation because of one’s skill, training, or other qualification.

      “preserve”: to keep alive or in existence; make lasting: to preserve our liberties as free citizens. to keep safe from harm or injury; protect or spare. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.

      “protect”: to maintain the status or integrity of especially through financial or legal guarantees. to foster or shield from infringement or restriction. to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction.

      “Constitution of the United States: I won’t post the whole thing here, just the preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the assigned Presidential duties – all caps are mine to emphasis points.

      Preambel to the Bill of Rights
      Congress of the United States
      begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES BE ADDED: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
      RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
      ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

      Constitution of the US
      Article. II, Executive Branch
      Section. 1
      The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
      The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President [Modified by Amendment XII].
      The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
      No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
      In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected [Modified by Amendment XXV].
      The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
      Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
      Section. 2
      The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
      The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
      Section. 3
      He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
      Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

      Hope this assists you in understanding that only lawyers, etc try to chnge the plain meanings of words, to distort them, to assist in the “misconstruction” of the meaning of the US Constitution, our legitimate government. In other words, another way to lie and deceive people. the Oath of Office, as a legally binding document, means EXACTLY what it says. ALL presidents are REQUIRED (another legal term) to PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the US Constituton. Everyone else is REQUIRED to SUPPORT and DEFEND the US Constitution. Those that take an oath are held to a higher sanding of SUPPORT and DEFENSE of it then the rest – but as a free, soverign nation where the people are a intricate part (despite the unlawful BS put out today) they are REQUIRED to have access to a free and truthful media when it presents itself as “news” that is not a monopoly, nor a cartel. Here are the laws that apply to that:

      Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
      When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.

      Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        Sorry for the miss spellings, extremely tired and irritated – not that it is a good excuse.

  • Just Tim

    Divide and Conquer. Out of chaos, any order will rule. The few over the many, be it goverment or church. This is my observations on the posted opinions here. I have lived to see two “Coup d’e tats” of this country in my life time; JFK assassination and 911. Both strengthened the elite few over the many to create chaos/divide and profits/power the world over. I am not the most educated man on this site, nor am I the dumbest. But what I do know I am a single being on a single Planet that will leave this planet one day and once more experience being “All and Everything That Ever Was and Will BE.” Like “Animal Farm”, there are pigs who believe they control the farm. I strive to see “The World”, not just a single nation that I was born in. I believe until the majority of Humans realize this, (USA is the last stronghold or obstacle) and act as such, Humans will never attain “Heaven on Earth.” Unless one big Starship shows up to humble us. I can only hope.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      “Out of chaos, any order will rule.”

      Actually, not ‘any order’. Foreign order will rule.

      The deliberate creation of chaos and division within our nation, along with the huge influx of illegal aliens being ‘allowed’ to stay creating further division allows us to currently fight amongst ourselves instead of the common enemy.

      What common enemy? At this time we have more foreign troops on US soil then at any time in our history. At the Canadian borders, at the Mexican border, and centrally. WE have had foreign submarines cruising our coastlines for some months now.

      That is so that they can step in with the prearranged ‘crash’ and panic of people here. If we don’t work together against them, we will die separately – remember the “depopulation’ in UN’s Agenda 21?

      Remember they also call for the depopulation of what they consider ‘aborigine’ peoples: American indians, blacks, mexicans, arabs, palastinians, etc. This is nothing new, it was done in Germany and other nations before. Do you think that those who were allowed to stay here will ever believe it was this government that lured them here (pretty much open borders in Mexiaco)?

      They destroyed the job market, housing, brainwash the kids, take over the media, divide the people, give them an enemy to blame it all on (at this time they are trying “gun owners – two birds with one stone), make them dependent entirely upon government for everything needed to live, etc.

      If you have not read UN”s Agenda 21, Free Trade, CAFCA, NAFTA, WHO, UN, etc you are in for a big unpleasant surprize.

      Obamacare – which even provides for an ‘civilian’ army swearing oaths to Obama to be built and paid for by us. Microchipping everyone was put back into it, (as I have said before and been ridiculed for it) the costs are going to be astronomical, death panels decide what treatment if any you will receive, and if none – you will be assisted peacefully (on their part) into death. YOU or YOUR FAMILY will have NO say so, only government assigned “doctors”. So Nazi of them. READ it, or at least skin it if you do not believe me.

      Again, none of this is new as far as the tactics and more modern equipment to be used against us – it is Nazi Germany and other similar government takeovers all over again. Most, if they live, will feel really stupid that they didn’t bother to learn enough to recognize it, if they think at all. “Taking over the world” “New World Order”, “One World Government” – it is all the same thing.

      I believe it can still be stopped at this time.

      Start holding your state representatives and those your state sends to represent you in fed gov accountable for the lawfully required Oaths that they MUST keep or be committing both criminal and civil offenses against your state, the USA and her people. REQUIRE their removal – no vote or anything else is needed, ( I have posted those laws here many times) their arrest and prosecutions. Start doing it now. Contact your governor and state AJ, remind them of the EXACT oath, what the state constitution requirews of them, what protections are listed there that that executive branch is REQUIRED to enforce and defend their people from. Or remove them.

      Same with LEO’s, and the mlitary – they take legally binding oaths and keeping them is a requirement of the position. When they say, ‘how can they know if all the laws are constitutional?’ Remind them of their oaths (friends, family, etc), teach them what that means – if they will not believe you contact CSPOA (constitutional sheriffs) and get them to talk to them or Oathkeepers. It is most important that they understand.

      EASY. They do not need to know all the laws, only what they have to measure them against.

      Learn the Bill of Rights, and (your) state constitution – if it does NOT 100% follow (be in pursuance thereof) of the US Constitution and (your) state constitution they are being asked to commit a criminal act by enforcing an unlawful order, law, bill, etc. They do not have to wait for the courts to decide. They, by being in the position they are in (like those in the Military) – and a US citizen or one LEGALLY allowed to be here – are to NOT enforce any unlawful orders no matter who makes them: presidents – there are precedents that they have ordered unlawful things – the enforcers beared the penalties though (court marshalled, prosecuted), governors, the guy standing on the cornor. THAT is the job They took when they took the lawfully binding oath to become a LEO or join the Military.

      Why? Because they have the DUTY to say “NO”, just as the Military does to unlawful orders pr enforcements.

      Show them what the treason laws are, and how the US constitution defines treason – show where theis adminstration committed treason: declaring that they (Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey) represent the UN, that they gave the UN authority over the USA – senate hearing & letter to Boehner, using UN and other foreign laws here in the USA against US citizens, etc.

      Judges cannot use any laws except constituional ones in courts to be lawful. IF they do, remove them immediately and arrest and hold for prosecution. Their Oaths REQUIRE them to follow the US Constitution and that is where they get their “authority” from – when they deviate from that they are breaking the law and their oaths.

      Homeschool your children. Teach them about the US Constitution and their responsibility to our type of government.Teach them to thik.Dump TV.

      {Go to DIY PirateBox was created by David Darts and is registered under the GNU GPLv3. This license grants the right to freely copy, distribute, and transform creative works according to the principles of copyleft. Learn it, make it and start our own network. http://davidda