It began last October as citizens began to sense that the 2008 elections would bring the most anti-gun partisans to Washington in U.S. history. Their hunch was correct. November of '08 witnessed a sweep into D.C. of Senators, Congressmen, and a President that were all on record supporting strict gun control, many of whom had even supported an outright ban of all handguns in America.
MAKE A VOTE FOR FREEDOM!
Comments (31)
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.
If it violates the Second Amendment disregard it! As it has no legal Standing!
States that assist federal Efforts to disarm the population like California should be ignored entirely.
I personally consider California legislators as lame duck Traitors. and None of them can be trusted they do not serve the people in the least.
I think i defer to the founding fathers who saw the Dangers in just the type of government we currently have in America today.
-------------------------------
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------
"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
-----------------------------------------
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803
------------------------------------
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference.” -- George Washington
-----------------------------------------
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Cesare Beccaria
-------------------------------
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." - Noah Webster
------------------------------------
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." - Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
-------------------------
"Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."
---------------------------
Like that last one a lot.
Must be good sale going.Got to help Mexican drug cartels arm up.I just got my Ruger for ,,you know ,target shooting and recreational uses/self protection.
This on the other hand is SPAM
I suppose that anything YOU don't like is spam.
Actually its very clear what spam is. This site is asking for something specific; an original idea. If its not original its spam, if its not an original idea its spam. I think what you have written is not original and its not specifically an idea of yours.
Actually, it is a new idea for the current administration, they don't seem to understand the way the Constitution works, it protects us, and we protect it, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is our Constitution, it does not belong to the government!
rejean, you are a moron did you know that?
the percentage of guns in Mexico being used by Cartels is small from the usa. the media LIES!!
now if you want Brutal honesty??? ill be happy to provide it to you. I do not give a Damn about mexicans killing each other in mexico. matter of fact i hope it spills into the usa big time so we can force the government to close the border.(there only Real job that they fail at)
it is painfully obvious that the US government is willing to have many Americans die for this corrupt deal they have going with Mexico and it is also quite obvious the government is involved with the drug trade or why allow it to continue to spill into the USA? seeing as you know so much please let me know where along the border i can toss my firearms over the fence and ill be more then happy to donate a few to the Drug War because dope dealers killing each other is always good! not to mention the loss of tourist dollars to Mexico.
All positive things if you ask me.
Moron?No sh1t,?Thanks I do know you don't know sarcasm though.BBut thanks for the heads up.Little higher,,,Little higher.Bang !Neckshot
Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
an executive and
a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:
Democracy:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences
Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.
The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.
That's right. Time to Arm... Gun control is all about control. It has nothing to do with guns. They disarm you and they can control you.
As for me give me liberty or give me death!
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference.”
"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
Ready that you Traitors.
The government is out of control. Arm yourselves.
Iran is an object lesson.
Buy your guns. Buy your neighbor guns.
Big guns.
PERHAPS THE MOVE TOWARD COMMUNISM? ILLEGAL DESTRUCTION OF OUR RIGHTS? A KENYAN MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE? i dunno... maybe all together.
Imagine what Iran would be like right now if they all had guns? I would think the bads guys would be less likely to shoot at civilians.
why do you think legislators are working to hard to disarm us now??
California has all but pulled it off with the blessing of Washington DC.
Californians should all refuse to comply with the unconstitutional laws
I've been active on this issue for over 50 years. I've about concluded that "out of my cold, dead hands" is the most effective approach. I've heard so many lies from the gun grabbers, and seen so many fake statistics, that expectig them to be reasonable is out of the question.
Their efforts are phobia driven, for the well meaning ones, but phobias are still a mental illness. Others are elitists, unable to stand the thought of power in the hands of peons.
The second amendment is based on an understanding of history, intended to prevent a repeat of the many historical abuses of power.It is the most liberal, the most progressive, statement in the entire Constitution.
OUT OF MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! Take your petty tyranny somewhere it is wanted, this Nation is for free men!
If the US government were as bad as some of these petty revolutionaries have indicated they'd do as Sadam did and use nerve gas or biological weapons against the people. Our guns wouldn't amount to a hill of beans against what they could bring against us. And if these people actually didn't trust the government, who in their right minds would sign up for this forum and then speak in such a fashion as they do here. Its pretty obvious that they either weren't born into the real world or they have absolute trust in the forbearance of the US government. In which case their just talking through their hats.
And in response to the person who said "what Iran would be like right now if they all had guns" anybody in Iran or Iraq who wants a gun can get one. Check out Iraq and Afghanistan. There are guns everywhere. But in a society where anyone can have a gun, central authority is week and law enforcement practically nonexistent might makes right and justice has nothing to do with it.
The only way your right to bear arms makes a difference is it allows you to stand up against others who also have guns. In an area where law enforcement is week this is a blessing but in a country such as ours where the criminals have lots of money and can buy superior armaments it just makes the homeowner and his pistol and rifle; gun fodder. The only people who can then stand up to the rich criminals with their superior armaments are the military who also carry those weapons and the only way they have of telling the difference between the civilians and the criminals are the presence of the guns, the loot or the drugs.
In the time when the US was in its infancy there wasn't a lot of difference between one soldier carrying his rifle and one civilian carrying his rifle but today its all about maximum firepower and one guy may carry enough firepower to kill the entire regiment facing him each with individual rifles.
The people who wrote the constitution had no way of knowing what sort of weaponry would exist 200 years later. They might have written the second amendment differently if they had.
My own suggestion is that there be a draft into the National Guard. Every man or woman, girl or boy gets drafted upon finishing their education. They don't have to serve with a gun in their hands but they do have to go through basic training. I'd be a lot happier with some of these people who carry guns if I knew they had gone through the training. Then I'd say no concealed weapons. And you have to check your gun in a hospital, school, old peoples home, bar etc. Put a detector on the door and if they don't want to check their gun they cant go in.
azaleahs, many of us DO NOT live all clustered up in big cities. There isn't enough nerve gas in the world to even make a dent. You need to stop believing all the propaganda you hear. You might also want to travel around some, and learn that everyone in this country isn't the same. You might also learn that brains do exist outside big cities.
We've heard your pitch, almost word for word, a million times, from a million different voices. It was senseless babble the first time we heard it, and it still is.
See, there you go, jumping to conclusions again. I don't live in a big city. I've carried a gun most of my life. I'm smart enough to realize that the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms not the right to carry them concealed. And its always easier to suggest that the opposition doesn't know what their talking about instead of actually debating and actually considering that the other guy may actually have a point. As long as both sides treat the other with the lack of respect you treated me with neither side will win anything other than the support of those that already support you whether your right or wrong.
I would love to carry openly, as opposed to concealed. The states usually only issue permits for concealed and it is not legal to carry openly.
You seem to be confusing the barbarians with the good people. It isn't the great majority of gun owners who cause problems, just a very few, who cause a lot of problems. Actually, for the most part, they just shoot each other. I don't have a problem with that. It saves the state a lot of money!
Or they shoot an innocent bystander (and I always try to be one of those).
I think that the states had best reconsider. If your going to allow people to carry a gun, I'd rather see it carried openly. And the police would have the right to arrest anyone who was carrying concealed unless they had a special permit. And I'd be very careful about issuing those. And if someone came into your place of business carrying a gun you could ask them to leave or check the gun. You could have a detector on your door that would detect a weapon.
The 2nd amendment says, "shall not be infringed".
There is no "allow" about it, self defense is one of the inalienable rights. Do you think that the government is required to protect you? Do you know that if you dial 911, and the cops don't come, and you get raped or robbed, or worse, that you CANNOT sue them?
I've been on the range many times when cops were practicing. Many of them are barely qualified to use a gun. How many times have you read about the cops firing off 40 or 50 rounds to stop someone? There is nothing special about cops that means they should be trusted to say who has a gun.
After reading all of the comments about guns I have come to the conclusion that we as a people will never agree on that issue (or any other for that matter). What distresses me is how the discussion turns to nasty at times and there are personal attacks on each other. I say (but who am I?) in a really free country you should have the right to have a gun OR NOT. It should be up to you. I keep a gun in my house to protect my family if there should be a home invasion. These happen too frequently and I don't want to be standing there flatfooted if it should happen here. Now in florida we have the legal right to shoot anyone who breaks down the door. When I lived in NC I carried a pistol openly on my hip and it saved my life just having it more than once.
jackmcg, it's been an issue of contention throughout history, this is why the Founding Fathers attempted to settle the issue, once and for all, with the Second Amendment.
How can you believe that the progressives are interested in a "free country", they are building a beehive.
You haven't seen "nasty" yet.
tsiya: An inalienable right is an allowed right. If its not allowed then its not a right. The point of my statement was I'd like to see that your carrying a gun. IIf you carry it concealed I cant tell. Therefore it should be unconcealed.
And the only inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Shall not be infringed is a statement indicating its a right granted by the constitution. An inalienable right is something your born with.
And of course progressives are interested in a free country. Freedom from hunger, freedom from the fear that the guy with the gun on his hip is going to shoot you in the back, freedom from having to sleep on the street. These are freedoms that presumably are guaranteed by the statement in the bill of rights that says just because its not listed here doesn't mean its not a right.
How about the freedom to determine who will have a gun in your own home or business. I may not want people in my place of business who are carrying guns.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution does not "grant" diddly squat, it recognizes and ratifies natural rights. Men had rights long before they had governments, you act as though government invented them.
Men created governments to guarantee them certain rights. You have the right to be conceived and then to die and those are the only rights you have unless some force backs it up and that force has to be formulated as law. The Bible has laws that guarantee rights and religion is a type of government that threatens you with damnation if you don't follow those laws. There are other kinds of governments as well that grant you rights. Without those laws we're back to my second sentence, thats all you got.
Well, I reckon that civil war is the only option you leave open. It's your choice!
I don't think we have reached that point and I do not see it in the near future. Sure their are abuses of power and their are many who would like to disarm us but as recent history has shown us they haven't been very successful. No matter what laws are passed or how much fear they try to put into the minds of the populace, guns are here to stay. When I was 19 I made my first gun. It was a single shot 22 but it was cabable of doing the job. We need gun safety taught to the children to minimize accidents. It is the accidents that give the anti-gun people the ammunition to campaign against gun ownership. No matter what laws are passed I have a gun and will always have a gun. I know how to use it and have the expert medal from the U.S. Army to prove it. I made sure my two boys knew gun safety and it is the responsibility of parents to train their children. It never ceases to amaze me that anyone can own a shotgun or hunting rifle and no one seems to mind. Can these anti nuts be that stupid?
Only a very small percentage of guns or gunowners are ever involved in a case of misuse. The statistics are there to show where the problems are. Go in and handle the problem areas, and watch crime levels fall. Restricting honest people doesn't do a thing but make them mad at you, I'm am really getting fed up with you hoplophobics.