Bowsite.com

Zero Tolerance for infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Period.

""When lasting peace replaces evil let me know. For now, I refuse to be a victim. Not from evil people, or from agenda-driven political ideologues and a complicit media. I refuse to be powerless.""

This needs to be shared far and wide. I think the idea of using Facebook is a good one; it will reach a much broader and less informed (on the issue) audience.

"First let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not a 'gun guy'. I do not hunt. I do not target shoot. I do not collect guns. I do not belong to the NRA. I do not live in a 'rough' part of town. I own no guns, nor have I ever needed to have one. The last time I fired a shot in anger was in 1968.

That being said, there are many people today, (myself included), who have a deep, (and a legitimate), distrust of the government.

They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control.

It has always been so. As Lord Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use that power.

Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature of large governments that this occurs.

Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best interest, then those in power use coercion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle.

This concentration of power and increasing coercion can be gradual (like slowly turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into boiling water).

One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again and again and again.

The Second Amendment is *our* guarantee that this loss of individual freedom and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.

One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of a dozen other locations around the globe to see examples of what happens when the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to resist.

Now you may feel that this distrust is not warranted, or that it verges on paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.

The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not have been a Second Amendment in the first instance.

They were *very* distrustful of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards against it by diluting that power into different branches and different levels. They tried to define precisely just who could do what, and what things they could not do. They added further That being said, there are many people today, (myself included), who have a deep, (and a legitimate), distrust of the government.

They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control.

The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to be imposed upon us.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are enumerated there. They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose its will upon the citizenry.

The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.

There are those Americans that honestly feel that this point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid, even dangerous.

If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to to look around more carefully.

Those of us that support the Second Amendment feel that it's relevance is as valid now as it was when it was first penned. “Finn” "

I would like to believe for the purposes of court arguments that personnel protection was one of the founding fathers elemental thoughts inspiring the second amendment. Frankly greater minds than mine have even said that to be so.

I'm not so sure, for I tend to believe that the right to self determination and self defense was deemed such a self evident truth that being required to define it was not even considered necessary. Maybe not, certainly not so in todays world.

In any case this author eloquently displays an understanding that the second amendment is for all of us, regardless of our hobbies, passions or past times, and that we do indeed need to speak with one voice.

Have a great bowhunt. BB

Whenever this hunting excuse is brought up it should be responded to by facts about it's origin rather than yes I do need an AK for hunting. The 2nd ammendment has Nothing to do with hunting.

If you really think about it, a politician who wants to strip a citizen of their rights are correct in fearing an armed citizenry.

They know that if we citizens are armed, especially with effective fighting arms, we will be much harder to turn into subjects.

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

-Thomas Jefferson

I do not disagree with you, but, be careful and don't get hooked when you take the bait. I fear that the more this point is argued the better Biden's stance against the ar15 gets. It's only a semi auto rifle and if the non sporting and defenseless public views the ar as a much superior defense weapon then it could backlash. I would say 'OK Mr. Biden, if it is sub par then what's the fuss? In that case, good thing the whacko left his shotgun in the car and didn't take it into the school or it could have been worse.'

Here's a post I just made to a very good friend about guns. I removed his name and post because I don't have his permission to highlight his position, and he'll jump in anyway if he wants to. His position is not illogical, nor uninformed, its just wrong as a practical and legal matter. Yes, my only claim to fame is a book on archery longbows, but I was a police officer and medic and firefighter (and attorney - still am), and I believe in the second amendment completely and even occasionally fire a shotgun (see picture). Folks, we need a reasoned debate and calm heads.Good people disagree with us - they are wrong, but still good people :-). I refuse to abandon friends because they disagree with me - I also refuse to give in. Anyway, here's the post. maybe it's a start. - Jay Campbell.

"Does restricting guns from law abiding citizens reduce crime? The data says no. Australia, England. The data does say that significant numbers of crimes are prevented by citizens with guns. And the data is overwhelming that the most restrictive gun laws in America do not deter gun crime (Illinois, Washinton, DC), while gun crimes drop where concealed carry is allowed (Florida, Texas). More importantly, the second amendment requires that citizens have uninfringed access to firearms, for the purpose of preventing an overarching government (not for hunting). Read Madison, Jefferson, Washington. No arguing historical definitions of firearms unless you will do the same for the first amendment. No arguing the "Militia" definition, the Supreme Court decided that. Take a look at the great Penn and Teller second amendment lessons on YouTube. Funny, and lawfully/grammatically/historically correct. Where's the plan to enforce the existing laws, instead of writing new ones? I agree we have a great problem. As a start, we should actually enforce the current laws against lying on firearm background checks (Biden has admitted there is NO enforcement currently). Then we should realistically agree that there is zero functional difference between single shot "SEMI-Automatic rifles and the proposed definition of "assault weapons" except cosmetics (pistol grip, barrel shroud, muzzle suppressor, folding stock - all cosmetic). There is no reasoned debate. tell you what - explain to me how any new law will solve the Chicago gun homicide problem better than enforcing the current laws, and I'm your Huckleberry. - Jay."

I HAVE A VALID HUNTING REASON TO OWN ARS! But, that doesn't really matter. The 2nd Amendment is reason enough.

Piers Morgan keeps talking about fully automatic ARs are banned. I thought they required a special permit to own. Which is it?

I respect those that do not wish to own a truly magnificant piece of weaponry. And I respect your voice in saying so.

However with Eric Holder being the largest gun runner in the North and the Bad Guys carry AK-47's here. Some of the last home invasions here have been armed individuals with AK-47s...... I would rather have a AR than a shotgun any day. The AR is a SURPURB home defense weapon, if they weren't, why would SWAT Entry teams use them. They use shotguns sure, but when it comes down to fighting fire with fire..... I want my AR.

Dave

Thanks again

"Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6"

"Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6"

Thanks for Bowsite!

I hope never to need a defensive weapon yet I carry one nearly all the time. When someone gives me a little static about carrying I tell them I understand their position and if we are presented with a life threatening situation I will not defend them if that is their wish. It at least gets them thinking a little.

I encourage everyone to write their elected officials expressing your support for the 2nd Amendment.

I am a gun owner. I do hunt with a bow and guns. I pass on this knowledge on to any younger generation members of my family. As long as they desire to learn to respect and safe handling of guns.

I too have had that personal experience. My experience was not a single individual though. I think my experience also shows the need why the amount of rounds should not be limited.

This event was the Los Angeles riots. The business was off from Normandie Ave. So to refresh the memories because its been a decade. This is where rioters dragged Denny out of his truck and caved his head in with a brick. Where the police abandoned the area to let the rioters do what they wanted. There were not enough police to control this situation. Where firemen were shot at while trying to put out the fires set by rioters. Where the police would allow business owners to protect their own and only go into the area to rescue them when the owners ran out of ammunition. Ultimately letting the rioters to loot, destroy, and burn the newly abandoned business. The police would not resupply ammunition to the owners. Where the army and national guard were not properly equipped to intervene for days. Where the government was not able to protect its citizens for a WEEK.

I realize this is a rare occurrence, but riots have happened many times. And one was enough for me. But it does demonstrate that the delusional suspect is not always a single or trio of individuals. It also demonstrates were the mass rioters may only be armed with bricks, and the individual needs hundreds of rounds and large capacity magazines. The government itself cannot always protect its law abiding citizens. And to limited the magazine size and the amount of ammunition an individual can have has proven to be deadly to those law abiding citizens abandoned by the local police and poorly prepared national guard.

And as a final note, the political smoke screen about the Los Angeles riots is they now try to label them the Los Angeles Civil Disturbance or the Los Angeles Civil Unrest. A week long looting, arson, and killing spree is not a mere disturbance or unrest.

It isn't about hunting. It is about freedom.

NickD: "Getting assault rifles off the shelves (& off the streets) is just one of many actions necessary to make our Country safer. "

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts (quoting a guy I heard on the radio).

Removing these rifles from the shelves and streets will make us LESS safe, not more. They are used far more often to deter crime than commit crime.

Feel free to turn in your arms, If you are lucky, should the time come, maybe someone else will protect you with their AR.

I have passed your editorial on to several friends and posted links on other forums. Viral huh? It hasn't even gotten rolling yet.

I can actually think of one instances where the police had to borrow such weapons from local gun shops and residents when the police themselves were under armed.

I think most swat team also carry those type of weapons and protect and save civilians all the time.

And to the 2nd Amendment has to be locked into only the weapons in existence at the time of it writing........I think the logic is flawed..........the writers intended a modern and competent militia. There is no need for a weak militia. A weak militia are just walking body bags. In 1770 that was black powder.............In 2010 that is semi automatic actions. In fact your argument you stated the militia should supplement a regular army in a time of emergency. That tells me militia should be at least trained in the basic infantry rifle of the army. And that is not a black powder musket but has a fully auto mode.

And if the current regulations were enforced.......we would not even need more regulations.

Well thought out and nicely worded. Ithink everything you said is true. I encourage everyone to write their policticians and tell them guns are the problem. We believe in the 2nd admendment and will not wavier or change its meaning.

They should vocus on the real problems in this country. We have a culture cricus. Lets start with addressing mental health issues,Hollywood, the gaming video industry, and the music industry. There lies the real culprits. They influence more people children then any other thing is this country.

amen,

Tundra

I don't believe our forefathers invisioned our current arsenal (remote guided missles, grenade launchers, jet fighters, nuclear & chemical weapons, ect).

Where do we draw the line in the sand in regards to personal protection? My personal answer is our current laws are adequate. Just enforce them!

Starhorse- there is a thread on the community forum titled " Educated firearm owner VS Idiot anchorman" that you should see. It will clear up some of your misconceptions with rational and realistic information.

Starhorse it is way beyond high capacity clips

Well said pat

As I am a veteran I have raised my right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That vow was not nullified on my ETS date. While we may not drill and practice marching in formation, have no doubt that if needed the 30,000,000+ veterans in this country would come together as a militia to augment the US military should the need arise.

I have bow hunted deer for 31 years. I no longer hunt deer with the gun, but I did participate mostly due to tradition. I do however hunt turkey and duck with the gun. My passion is archery, but I value and respect all forms of hunting as long as it is legal. It sounds like you do too?

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 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 shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are , than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and , pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute , it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and , all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The second amendment could have been written like the above statement, if that was the intention of the 2A. That IS NOT what it says....that is not what it means.

"A well regulated militia" means a well trained or well prepared militia....not regulated by the gov't....

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law....I get sick of people trying to twist things based on technicalities.

The intent of the 2A is very clear.

The lefties are correct...no one NEEDS and assault rifle. Which is true under normal circumstances. Just like no one NEEDS 12 air bags in their car until something really bad happens like a head on collision with a semi. Then an air bag is pretty handy. Responsible citizens need military style weapons when things go rally wrong...like the Rodney King riots. I was there. So NRA use that analogy. Impossible to poke holes in.

The argument the NRA should use is this to win the hearts and minds of the masses" "We will support any type of gun/ammo/capacity restriction as long as the civilian government agencies also adopt the same restrictions. If citizens are not allowed to carry assault weapons neither are the police, FBI, ATF, Homeland Security etc."

The logic is infallible. If less weapons make the law abiding citizens safe then there is no need for the government to have them either.

The debate is over, the lefties shut up, and we go on about our lives.

Come on Wayne...it is simple. To the masses the NRA looks like a bunch of gun toting kooks. You may be right, but if you keep up your current campaign you will lose the war.

The primary reason for the second amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government... Period! How will that be done without a high capacity equal to that of our government?

With a revolver?shotgun? Single shot rifle?

Your statement is foolish! And and also shows a lack of understanding to our 2nd amendment rights!

Honestly, I think the gun-banners just don't understand the magnitude of what they are suggesting, or the resolve of who they are facing.

Make no mistake! they want our guns!! It was proven that the accessories on a firearm does "not" make it more dangerous or deadly. A magazine is an accessory.

A "fire arm", a completely inanimate object (left untouched) can do NO harm.. it's "who" touches it, we should be worried about.

The U.S constitution is Non-negotiable,the bill of rights was put inplace to protect the people from the government. READ IT! UNDERSTAND IT!

A government that tells me what type of firearm that I can use to defend my family,myself,or my fellow man,to hunt with,to shoot with,is NOT showing me the security of a free state.

This is a direct attack on the constitution, and the people. In my opinion,A spit in the face..especially to the men and women of our armed forces that gave their lives to defend and serve this country, so we can have those freedoms.

"To see the wolves true intentions,first,you must pull the wool from your eyes"

May you live forever.

As hunters: We hold these truths to be self-evident certain reasonable regulation keep us from over harvesting wildlife, tree stand regulation use on public land, steel shot on public land, how many shells (three) you can in have in your shot gun duck hunting, minimum bow pounds to hunt, etc or your equipment is confiscated & sold by the State or Federal Government.

Three Presidents, Reagan, Clinton, Bush wanted reasonable regulation and then Congress had a ten year reasonable regulation on capacity magazines and automatic or semiautomatic weapons.

Our Nation has been here before and again we the people will have reasonable regulation again.

Based on these powerful modern tools of communication, all Americans(except for the elected ruling class of course...)should only be able to have the use of no more than several hundred words a day in print or in cyberspace. No one "needs" more than that.

Scott

To NickD, Starhorse, Grey Hair Bowhunter, and Jimbo: Keep drinking the liberal kool-aid.

This is only a first step for the gun control democrats. The list below is what they really wanted in NY.

1. Confiscation of "assault weapons" 2. Confiscation o ten round clips 3. Statewide database for ALL Guns 4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public 5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons” 6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines 7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines 8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month 9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners 10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years 11. State issued pistol permits 12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State 13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers 14. Mandatory locking of guns at home 15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons

"The only regulation trying to pass is to limit high capacity magazines and automatic or semiautomatic weapons -- not to prohibit us from owning our shotguns, handguns, rifles or bows ”

Take a close look at what NY has just done. We already had a ban on high capcity mags and the limit WAS ten. Since they already had a ten round limit why let a good crisis go to waste? So they went for a 5 round magazine limit but the Republicans compromised on a seven round limit. Why? He had thirty round mags with him at Newtown. Because they could care less about "being reasonable", they want it all and will not stop until they get it, they will just keep chipping away at it until they get a total ban. They also banned thumb hole stocks. Why? Wake UP!

Also talking of the former assault weapon ban The violent crime rate has actualy gone down since it ran out.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/28/EXCLUSIVE-Journalist-Accosted-By-Security-Over-Mayor-Bloomberg-Gun-Control-Question

As I walked into a local convenience store on the way to bowhunt at 4:30 AM sat. morning, I thought of the incident you related! I felt safer knowing I had my CCW and could do a little more than just dive behind a display case for cover, if need be! ;-)

We need to take responsibilities as teachers, mothers, fathers, and general United States of America citizens. Take some pride in it and start doing something proactive to help it out versus deconstructing everything and laying blame.

Great Article, Pat. You got me fired up. (AGAIN.)

2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves to the government, criminals, and street gangs.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

As a matter of fact, I'm buying AR15 parts and putting together my custom AR rifle....not because I need one now but because the anti gun boobs say I should not have one! Plus I have the funds and who knows, I may need it one day.

Folks, the world has changed. I am still in law enforcement after 30 years, have bowhunted since '67, am a former NRA member and Navy veteran. While there are other factors contributing to the recent tragedies besides guns...guns are the vehicles of immediate destruction used by these guys. Too many of those posting here have, I believe, fallen for the "any attempt at any further restriction/regulation on firearms is an attempt to take ALL my guns".

Give it a rest! Get real! Any of you available next time we get called to a domestic involving a guy with an arsenal, off his meds, lost his job and has made the usual statement, "I won't be taken alive"? Oh, and now a family member mentions he has an AK or an AR. And guess what - he has either NO criminal record or a very minor one. Or explain to the teenage gf of the 18yr old (no criminal record) how & why he was able to buy a new shotgun 30 min before, come home, stick the barrel in his left eye socket and pull the trigger - in front of her. Come on, step up to the plate.

Last I checked we are still a democracy, a union of states under the umbrella of an entity we call the federal government. We discuss points, vote and then move on. If that doesn't work for you...well then you have options.

Anyways, I think we absolutely need reasonable restrictions, universal background checks and I DON'T think every Tom, Dick and Harry ought to be able to buy an assault weapon and high capacity mag.

Go ahead...make my day and call me crazy.

Criminals & crazies kill people & more rules & banning is not going to change that.

Write your politicians & express your views. I have. Single voices of protest came together & postponed the Eastern Sport show & those same voices will be heard when it's time to VOTE new or old into office....

First off let me say thank you for your service. I know that NYC is not an easy place to be a cop. I admire your dedication and respect your right to state your opinion.

That being said I believe it to miss the mark in many ways. I too am an LEO and though I’ve never been in a gun battle I fail to see how that makes you more qualified to say Ak’s/Ar’s should be banned. I am willing to bet that there are many military guys as well as other LEO’s, that have seen the elephant and would wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment.

Regardless let’s go point by point and I apologize in advance if they’re not in order and for the length of this post:

“I have worked in some of the worst streets of NY during the 80's and 90's. Murder rate in NY was over 2500 a year”

That pretty much sums up the fallacy that is gun control. New York has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books yet some of the highest gun crime rates on the books as well. Same goes for Chicago, LA, Detroit, DC, etc…. all areas with tight gun control laws. Do I agree that criminals should be debarred the use of “assault weapons” Absolutely, but they are by definition, wait for it…….. CRIMINALS! They do not obey the laws. Trying to solve the crime problem by “reducing the availability of guns” sounds good in theory, but is not practical, ethical, possible, or based upon reality. Good guys won’t have them, bad guys still will. They will always find ways to procure them. There is already an intense saturation of firearms in this country so it wouldn’t be feasible in that regard alone. There also will always be a high availability of guns on the black market as well.

There are ways of taking care of the gun crime problem, but stripping away the rights of honest citizens isn’t one of them, and, to borrow your quote, is “immoral and selfish”. That theory is akin to trying to crack down on drunk drivers by outlawing alcohol. It doesn’t work and only restricts those who are already trustworthy and law abiding. The true way to crack down on crime is to make the consequences so un-attractive that it deters those who would commit it. Furthermore the music, games, and movies that we allow our children to indulge themselves in from an early age is, in my opinion, a much larger contributing factor than an overabundance of guns. The issues we are facing is a culture problem not a gun problem. Guns were as or more plentiful 40-50 years ago, but you never had the amount of problems as we do now. Why? Because we have fostered a generation of degenerates. We as a society are responsible for the chaos that is abounding and have brought it upon ourselves. Regardless of your position on God, there is little debate that when we as a society embraced Christian-Judeo values and ethics our society was more polite, respectful, and less violent. FYI statistics have shown that in the first decade of the new century (over half of which the weapons ban had expired) mass shootings were down when compared to the 90’s (over half of which the ban was in effect) and 80‘s as well.

“We have evolved into a very violent society in two hundred years”

That is true, but it did not happen overnight, nor can you convince me that it is due to guns.

“I absolutely do not agree that Joe/Jane average citizen should be running around with his/her AR-15 just because they want one, and it looks cool. Those weapons are specifically designed for nothing but to kill people…..”

So was the 8 shot colt 1911. What’s your point? With the riots that have taken place in the past decades, and the ticking time bomb that is our world, the guns you have named are exactly the type of weapons that I want in my gun safe. Whether or not you think I am qualified to own one. Your reasoning is preposterous! It is a documented fact (much to our shame ) that LEO’s have a less than stellar record with marksmanship. (I can verify this by the shooting scores I see from my fellow officers during qualification time) I am willing to bet that many of the “average citizens” out there are more proficient and trained than a lot of LEO’s. I agree that LEO’s should have heavy firepower, but honest citizens should have that RIGHT as well. Here again you have an argument that is easily countered. I could say that Joe/Jane average citizen should not be allowed to own a crotch rocket motorcycle just because they want one or they look cool. They’re specifically designed for nothing but breaking the speed limit. It is obvious by your idealism that you are a true blue New Yorker. I happen to live in rural Montana and there are a plethora of uses for an Ar-15 out here. Just because you don’t want them in New York (one of the highest crime factory’s in the union) does not give you, the federal government, or anyone else the right to deny them to me. You have incriminated yourself by using New York as an example. New York City has a long track record of divesting the liberties of all because of the abuse of a few under the façade that it is for the benefit of everyone. Example: the ban on oversized soda’s to combat obesity. LOL what a load of horse poo. The ideas you are espousing fall right in line with many of the tyrants in the last century that have used gun control to restrict the populace and have their way with them. The idea that the citizenry should be armed inferior to the government paves the way for the ability to make a police state. I am not saying we should all have tanks and bombs, but to say that we have a legitimate defense against possible tyranny or heavily armed criminals with bird guns and deer rifles is ludicrous. Which brings me to the next correlating point I want to address:

“factoid, 90% of most shootings occur within 7 feet of each other. My Sig Sauer .380 8 shot will do the trick just fine if need be. Second factoid, if you miss the first three shots at your intended target, you will miss with the remainder. God knows my 6 shot revolver did fine also. No need for AK's”.

I am more than impressed by your ability to contradict yourself. If your above statement is true, then why did you say “Leave the heavy weaponry for Law enforcement, Military, and Border patrols” #1 and #2 “I have made many arrests gun where perpetrators carried tech 9's, Ak 47's, Ar's, high ammo capacity semi hand guns, etc. while I was toting a smith and Wesson 6 shot revolver ( pea shooter)”. If the Sig .380 is fine for you (or the average citizen) than so should it be for all LEO’s, especially if you miss the first 3 shots. In that case then what does it matter whether you or the perp has a high capacity “assault” rifle or not? Furthermore if your 6 shot revolver does fine why did you say that is was a “pea shooter” and then pontificate on the aforementioned need for “heavy weaponry”?

“There were no AK's when the constitution( 2nd Amendment) was written, they shot 1 shot muskets if I'm correct. Took forever to reload. Hanging your hat on an antiquated doctrine to keep these weapons in circulation in this society is immoral and selfish”.

That is such an asinine statement that I find it hard to justify with a reply. There also wasn’t TV, Radio, or Internet either, so does that make it okay to restrict first amendment and free speech? “antiquated doctrine” are you really serious? Honestly that is one of the most abhorrent things I have ever read. Your logic is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. By your reasoning the declaration and all the other bill of rights are antiquated as well. You have exposed the true nature of liberal thinking. The annihilation of the constitution. But just in case I am misinterpreting your ideology I refer you to those old dead white guys that came up with the “antiquated doctrine” (you know the fellas that formed our country)

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence 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, speech of June 9 1788

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms”. -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 And last but not least:

“"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

Obviously they used muskets in those days, but the intention was clear: To afford the general populace the ability to protect themselves from not only common criminals, but from a tyrannical government. Washington’s statement sums it up. The ability to have arms should be sufficient in comparison with the government. If you don’t understand the principles behind that “antiquated doctrine”, and think that it is only relevant to “olden” times and muskets then I highly suggest you spend some time studying up on your history, and reading the founding fathers statements. Their intentions with regard to the second amendment is easily interpreted when you read their statements regarding the uses of arms and the rights involved with bearing them.

Should anyone be able to own an AR or AK. No not just anyone, but law abiding citizens. Obviously you will always have abusers, who may not have a track record of criminality or mental instability, but that doesn’t negate the liberties of everyone else. Again should we restrict a 24 pack of beer down to a 2 pack because some abuse it? (Or in the case of Nordic archer’s statement some 18 yr old kid decided to get behind the wheel drunk and killed himself)? I believe it is a rhetorical question.

I will say that Kman very well stated the right realities of the NRA. They are a good organization and I fully agree with their premise of not allowing gun liberties to be assaulted, but as Kman said they need to do a better job winning the hearts and minds. Many of the talking points they are using are driving people the other way. Gun control arguments are easily defeated with out polarizing those who are un-convinced either way.

All of us can agree that something needs to change, and that Sandy Hook was a horrific tragedy, but taking guns away from folks like me is not the answer, whether it be an AR, AK, Remington 870, or granddaddy’s 30-30. Am I willing to consider a multitude of proposals that would help to prevent criminals from easily accessing guns? You betcha, but the answer does not lie in me having my ability to own an AR, AK, M1A, FAL, KSG, or any other similar firearm reduced, restricted, or in any other way compromised. Period

I wish others here would refrain from buying into the over-the-top NRA hype and give due consideration to your posts. Thank you for your service. And, thank you for bringing rational opinions to this thread.

wacoyaco (a retired NYC police officer): "I believe we have the right to bear arms to protect our families. I believe we should use rifles and shotguns to hunt our big game and birds.But I absolutely do not agree that Joe/Jane average citizen should be running around with his/her AR-15 just because they want one,and it looks cool."

nordicarcher (30 years in law enforcement and a Navy veteran): "Anyways, I think we absolutely need reasonable restrictions, universal background checks and I DON'T think every Tom, Dick and Harry ought to be able to buy an assault weapon and high capacity mag."

Right on, men! Great posts! Thank you!

>>>>---------->

Or explain to the teenage gf of the 18yr old (no criminal record) how & why he was able to buy a new shotgun 30 min before, come home, stick the barrel in his left eye socket and pull the trigger - in front of her. Come on, step up to the plate.

My 18 y/o brother bought a hunting rifle, stashed it in a farmer's field and then a week later used it to end his life. I am convinced if he was NOT able to buy the gun, he would have found another way to do it. Crashing his car, stepping in front of a train or plugging up the tail pipe and doing it by asphyxiation. This is not JUST a gun issue!!!!!! It is also a Mental Health issue!!!!!!!! Let's stop blaming the guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the events took place around 1946, which in my opinion is "yesterday" in the scope of history. To further connect the dots, many of the guns used during the event are mentioned in Mrs. Feinstein's latest proposal. It's a fantastic little microcosm of why the second amendment is there and why all other "rights" fall without it.

Meth is illigal; I do not know of any law abiding citizens using meth.

heroin in illigal; I do not know of any law abiding citizen using heroin.

murder is illigal; I do not know any law abiding citizen commiting murder.

Gun free zones are a joke. If a person wants to kill someone (which is illigal already) the gun free zone ONLY keeps me from carrying not the criminal!

If a certain gun is illigal to own; it will be removed from law abiding citizens. And a black market will be created for the banned gun; hence more crime.

Just look at how the gun sales have increased in the last month just out of fear.

I need to be able to have as much fire power that is available to the crooks, gangs and waco's to be equalized.

It boggles my mind why this is a hard concept for some to understand.

The politicians that do not understand this are obviously to stupid and do not have the ablilty to hold office. Therefore must be removed from their duties.

Having taught World and Am. History for over forty years, I propose a required reading assignment: Some of these postings suggest that the writer be required to read the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Baron de Le Brede de Le Montesquieu. Then study the listing of complaints against the King in the Declaration. The writers of the Declaration had studied such and realized the conditions with respect to their time and place had reach the point that they undertook Locke's "revolution' which resulted in the birth of our country. One of these posts refers and quotes the Declaration.....BRAVO!!!! Those Redcoats who were sent to Concord and Lexington were British soldiers and the King was using them against his own people who were disagreeing with his laws. It took guts to stand against them at Concord and Lexington...CITIZEN SOLDIERS...(Milita). Look around the world today.....do so seriously.....and count the truly free nations on this earth...not many! Start with the US.

"My problem is if YOU have one, the crooks WILL have one."

And if I don't have one, the bad guys STILL do. Get it? See, you are not held accountable for MY safety. When it takes twenty minutes for a uniform to respond that's nineteen minutes and twenty five seconds too long.

BTW, all those gun control laws in NYC didn't stop your partner from getting killed. You can't protect your own, why should I rely on you to protect my own?

Tony ( from a long line of LEOs who believed that every citizen should be armed )

Excellent post!!! When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. That NYC would have a cop with these opinions is one of the reasons many people north of the city would love to see the state divided.

2. Prior to the most recent election, polls showed most Americans distrusted our politicians. Why now should we trust them with this?

3. If you are going to use the argument that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply today because firearms don't look, feel or function at the same level as they did when it was written, then by that same argument the Declaration of Independence is no longer valid and we should subject ourselves to British rule once again. After all, the British Government is nothing close to what it was when we declared our independence.

4. Finally, and most importantly, the Second Amendment exists for one reason and one reason alone. It is there to ensure that the other Amendments are not infringed upon. Not by your neighbor, not by another country, not by a criminal, not by your best friend, and not by your own government.

I love it when others try to dictate what one person should have based on their assessment of one's "needs".

It is not always AR's and hi capacity magazines that the crazy people are using to do there evil deeds. On November 30th 2012 Wyoming had a young man go to a college classroom where his father was teaching and kill him in cold blood. The young man then killed himself. This was after he already killed the fathers girlfriend in the street a few blocks from campus. There wasn't a single shoot fired from a gun during this brutal attack. The young man used a compound bow plus a knife for his destruction unto others and himself. IT IS THE PEOPLE DOING THE CRIMES NOT THE WEAPONS. I have attached the link to Wyoming's tragic story that did not make the big news in this time of blaming weapons for the crimes committed.

WOW!!! In my eyes, that pretty much nullifies anything else you posted!

You should also Check out this Youtube video. It shows that there is only about 30sec differnce when changing two 10 round clips and shooting a clip of 20 on a semi auto gun. Granted he has the two 10 round clips taped together...but all the same...Only 30sec differnce. And it discribes the differnce between an "Assault rifle(which has already been banned since 1986) to the sporting rifle. Even though the look the same..the are not the same rifle

This clip too was well thought out and presented such as yours!

Check it out!

Shoot Str8 and Stay Safe

Jeff

Here is an important point of view. Is it correct?? You decide, but this is well worth reading to the end. If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking but are too cautious to express openly.

I hope it never comes to what he is advocating but I can certainly see where the possibility exists.

God help us all if it ever does happen.

PS Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan, grew up in the Indiana, Illinois, and Texas, and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan. Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan. His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights. If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable. Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution. Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt. I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights. Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution? 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.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here: The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson 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 The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple. A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us. Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, It's my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights. Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play. I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution. Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list. I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave. If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770?s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference. This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos. I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this. What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left? I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I cannot tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so. For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side. Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Categories ?

|

Close ad

AdChoices

© 2013 Microsoft Terms Privacy About our ads Advertise Developers

Help Center Feedback English

Here is an important point of view. Is it correct?? You decide, but this is well worth reading to the end.

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking but are too cautious to express openly.

I hope it never comes to what he is advocating but I can certainly see where the possibility exists.

God help us all if it ever does happen.

PS Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan, grew up in the Indiana, Illinois, and Texas, and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan. Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan. His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights. If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable. Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution. Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt. I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights. Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution? 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.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here: The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson 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 The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple. A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us. Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, It's my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights. Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play. I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution. Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list. I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave. If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770?s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference. This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos. I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this. What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left? I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I cannot tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so. For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side. Are you willing to die to take my guns?

New | Reply Reply all Forward | Delete Junk

Sweep ?

Mark as ?

Move to ?

Categories ?

|

Close ad

AdChoices

© 2013 Microsoft Terms Privacy About our ads Advertise Developers

Help Center Feedback English

If Feinstein, etal, were around when Cain slew Able she would have proposed banning any stick longer than 12 inches, or any rock small enough to be lifted overhead so there would have been "sensible weapon control".

Any weapon regardless of color, style or how many cartridges it can hold is absolutley inanimate and incapable of independent movement or action.

It is the actions of people that cause the problems.

I have had an armed intruder in my home, and I can assure you only the application of firepower prevented him having things go his way. I did not feel undergunned. And as long as I am here, I will not be.

Garo

Agreed. Very sad.

Correct. Or stated another way, the citizens were armed equally with the gov't and criminals, as it should be.

Please spread the word!

My mother, who's in her seventies, had a suspected break in at her home. She called the police and it took at least an hour for them to respond. I live three hours away from her and could not help but I kept her on the phone until help arrived. My wife called the dispatcher in my mothers town of Independence Missouri after about thirty minutes with no response from the police. The dispatcher said they did not know when they could get an officer over there, which my mom only lives about ten blocks from the police station. So I had my wife call my uncle who lives a couple miles from my mom to go help it took them about five minutes to get there.

Luckily there was no intruder, but had there been, I would have felt a whole lot better if my mom owned a gun and was trained to defend herself with it. Because the police could have been responding to something much worse if there had been an intruder, although it would have been too late for my mom.

Correct. Or stated another way, the citizens were armed equally with the gov't and criminals, as it should be.

Elkhuntr, perfectly stated!

I will be using that!

Who would be knocking on your door. Local police, state Police, armed forces, National Guard. We all know someone that has family in one of these jobs. Ask them to ask what would there family member do if they were told to go and get every firearm out there from law abiding citizens. Would they back their families or the govt.

Also I post on the Leatherwall about a true article, where a lone German partrooper was blown off course, during an air drop, when Germany invaded Holland. One lone German soldier caputured an entire village.

GREAT THREADS ON BOWSITE AND LEATHERWALL, THANKS PAT FOR A JOB WELL DONE!

After personally witnessing the shoddy gun handling skills by the CT State police,and hearing them say that they are only required to have three hours of range time per year, I SERIOUSLY question law enforcement's opinions on who should own what firearms.

quote [The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment From: Brian T. Halonen The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.] end quote

What the founders were refering to in "well regulated" was a MILITIA that was in "proper working order", or trained and ready, as ..."being necessary to the security of a free state...." (please note the word FREE!!) . They then went on to note that because it's THE PEOPLE who are that milita, then their "....right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Well regulated DOES NOT mean telling the militia what kind of arms it can and cannot have and/or accessories to those arms.

Right on PAT!!

Best of Luck, Jeff (Bowsite Sponsor)

Think back to this, the Second Amendment was written to assist the Federal Military in case the nation was attacked or occupied, and to also defend against a corrupt and tyrannical government.

It was written right after the Sons of Liberty threw a corrupt and tyrannical government out of the country. This was done with the help of the citizens, fighting along side of the regular forces.

When the Second Amendment was written, there was no Price Chopper or Costco to go buy steaks from. You either had a cow, or you hunted with your gun.

Having a gun was a given, so Coumo the argument of how many bullets does it take to kill a deer holds no water. It doesn't matter.

The bullets are needed to take back the liberties and freedoms that were slowly eroded away by the corruption of power hungry career politicians, right under the noses of a sleeping population.

It is time to wake up America!! You have been sleeping too long. Guys like Waco and them just don't get it. Jay

This is a Neural Linguistic Programming technique. People who don't already associate hunting with guns will eventually will with the continual programming. The media will make sure that the word "hunting" is forefront in the average citizens mind. Why use NLP? Because it works.

These "leaders" already know what guns are for. They will never speak on it or address it and the media will ensure it doesn't get out if they accidentally do.

The idea is to make you a subject. A controllable, programmable subject. Why do you think 8 out of nine of the Harvard Law Professors are confirmed Marxists?

At this point open subversion may be a foregone conclusion. It's rather sad that it comes to this. If our guns go away...our right to say "no" follows.

Gambling is highly regulated. Should anyone who wants to be able to open their own casino?

Everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness, right, so I guess seat belt and helmet laws are anti-American? What about hunting laws?

Point is, our society values and needs reasonable regulation.

Thanks to all those who have acknowledged that this is a debate about SOME guns, not ALL guns.

This absolutist interpretation is the main reason why the NRA and hardcore supporters of ALL guns without limitations have lost credibility in this public discussion re: gun control (doing a disservice to reasonable/responsible gun owners -- the silent majority).

Consider, for example, some other reasonable limitations on our constitutional rights... - the first amendment protects the right to assemble, but municipalities can require permits specifying where, when, etc. - the first provides for freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater - the 21st amendment made re-legalized alcohol, but its far from an open market -- the production and sale of alcohol is highly regulated.

The limitations placed on our constitutional rights are reasonable regulation in the public's best interests. And we have an independent judiciary to ensure that any regulations enacted do not abridge our rights. So why does the NRA oppose ANY AND ALL efforts to enact reasonable regulation? This absolutist position is both disingenuous (come on -- we all know civilians don't need and shouldn't have access military hardware) and, in fact, it threatens the liberties we cherish. As always, the answer is in the middle ground, and extremism and polarization of the debate actually runs counter to the interests of law abiding gun owners.

So, anyway, I'm all for SOME reasonable regulation.

Still curious how someone could reconcile opposing all regulation of weapons, but support the prohibition of marijuana...

Do you mean to imply that Firearms are NOT already highly regulated?

Do you hear ANYONE advocating for allowing a 12 year old to buy handguns? Do you hear anyone saying they should be able to buy a Nuke or a Land mine?

Equating Firearms to illegal drugs is so ludicrous that it doesn't deserve mention, so I won't.

If you do not grasp the true reason for the 2nd Amendment then you probably would trade away someone else's arms for what you perceive as the Gun Grabber's promises to leave yours alone. That's an incredibly naive and selfish position.

As many have stated here, we have the right to what the police and military have in the way of small arms. The Supreme Court said as much.

Our new Secy of State was apparently talking to you.

The arrogance of some politicians and a specific retired LEO on this board is frightening. No wonder NYC is the sewer it has become, when its public servants spew that drivel and have no interest in supporting the constitution that they swore to uphold. Bill

The 21st amendment was written long after the original amendments were written. As far as booze goes its regulated cuz the government can't get there tax money off moonshine.

Now onto grass. What's so bad about it. Yeah in my younger days I smoked plenty of grass and I was too young to grow up in the 60's and 70's. I say legalize it. Tax the hell out of it and maybe we won't have to pay as much in taxes.

Anyways bottom line there are a lot more bigger problems in our country then whether or not the responsible people if this country have guns or not like all the illegals in our country taking jobs from American citizens. Yeah I deal with them every daybun my line of work.

Look at what has happened in Colorado, now we can not loan a gun to a good friend, we can not buy virtually all magazines etc. These bans will not prevent any crime.

The real issue is this: Prohibition did not work. Banning semi automatic weapons will not work, banning magazines will not work. However there are idiots here and all around the country who are willing to give these items up.

the new laws in Colorado will not see a decrease in crime, instead it will likely have the opposite effect. Once the magazine ban is in place criminals will still kill people using the banned magazines. When this occurs on a repeated basis they will then state, the prior ban was not enough there fore we need more... There is no room to give, it is not about gun manufacturers, it is not about criminals, it is not about hunting, it is about the survival of our Constitution and the very real possibility that our children will not enjoy the same freedoms that we have enjoyed.

You either believe in the 2ns amendment or you do not. If you do not head to Australia and see how nice it is!!!

Sorry the preamble to the 2nd Amendment has thrown you off, but the Supreme Court has ruled that you are incorrect. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is an individual right. Settled law.

This Kabuki theater is just the politicians and disingenuous limousine liberals trying to get around the law.

64 indian 64 The south is the US, not just the southern states.

If this is an issue for you about having the firepower to defend against a hostile government, take the time to think it through clearly. The governments firepower so overwhelms yours that, unless you can convince the soldiers to come to your side, and bring their equipment and arsenals with them, you don't stand a chance of prevailing with anything you can currently buy on the open market.

Let's go back to using guns for simple self defense and hunting. Anything we can buy now is better than the primitive single shot weapons used when the second amendment was written.

I was very impressed with your post here; And I really think you should consider seeking some sort of board position with the NRA.............

I too am a Police Officer...... and I am 110% in favor of citizens right to bear arms......

For whatever reason;; I have never joined the NRA,,,,, Probably because I am a member of a couple of hunting organizations,, and I tried to limit the number of organizations I pay dues to.

Your post has inspired me to join the NRA. I think it's more important now than ever.

Good stuff Pat !!!

There are still battles ahead unfortunately.

You mean like Eric Holder and Obama's Justice Dept.?

GOD, guns and guts have kept America free;

At any cost, lets keep all three!

>>>>-------->

:-)