How about some non-PC brutal honesty!


The media has been reporting that the Oregon school shooter’s father has been speaking about the need for stricter gun control measures.  In a recent interview with media, he said (referring to his son),”How on earth could he compile 13 guns?  How can that happen?  They talk about gun laws, they talk about gun control.  Every time something like this happens, they talk about it, and nothing is done.

How about a little brutal TRUTH and HONESTY:

Bobby Jindal, a republican presidential candidate writes:

This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns.  Of course he doesn’t know.  You know why he doesn’t know?  Because he is not, and never has been in his son’s life.  He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public.  He is the problem here.

If we as a nation are serious about stopping these kinds of horrific crimes, we must address the root causes of the problem … and not simply ban the tool used. Pipe bombs are already illegal and banned but several of these mass killers have used or attempted to use them as well. There were pipe bombs at Columbine!  Cain slew his brother Able with a rock!  Are we going to ban rocks, knives, sticks and sharpened pencils? Our society is devolving into a cesspool of decay.  We truly are seeing the breakdown of the family, the complete abdication of fathers, the devaluation of human life and the glorification of evil.


The father also …

brags that he has never held a gun in his life and that he had no idea that his son had any guns?  Why didn’t he know? Because he failed to raise his son.  He should be ashamed of himself , and he owes us all an apology.  When he was asked what his relationship was with his son, he said he hadn’t seen him in a while because he lived with his mother.  Case Closed.

We as Americans no longer raise our children.  We just have them.  Far too many “parents” (and I use the term loosely) are not teaching their children about personal responsibility, the value of human life, self-respect, social skills, the greater good.  Other human beings are seen by many of these kids as nothing more than CGI figures in the violent video games they play; video games where other human beings are simply targets for killing … killed by kids doped up on pills to keep them docile in the classroom.  And, when these kids finally act out … those with an agenda rush to blame a tool … an inanimate object.  Much easier than looking at the real problem which is this …. when our culture decays and we rot our children’s minds with garbage … these are the results we reap!

And Obama … he simply jumps behind a podium and politicizes it, seizing on the emotional distress he needs to push toward disarming all law-abiding Americans who do not accept his tyrannical version of hope and change.  Because like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and others … Obama knows a disarmed society is a compliant society.


What was the Roseburg, Oregon Shooter’s Motivation


Chris Harper-Mercer, the Roseburg, Oregon gunman, was shot to death in a shootout with Roseburg police so we cannot ask him what would cause him to do what he did, but his social media activities can help give us a clue as to what motivated this young man to commit such a heinous act.

It has been reported that among the details authorities have allegedly found was one detail the left-wing media (and President Barack Obama) doesn’t want the public to know. Chris Harper-Mercer had a MySpace account on which he was friends with an apparent Islamic terror supporter.

The Daily Beast has reported that Harper-Mercer’s MySpace account on the now mostly defunct social media site included a contact, Mahmoud Ali Ehsani. Ehsani had pictures of “Mujahedeen” from around the world on his account, as well as a post in which he wrote “kill the Jews.”

Harper-Mercer’s MySpace page reportedly contained praise for terrorists as well. However, his terrorist heroes were admittedly from different ideology … his page had material glorifying members of the Irish Republican Army.

A blog linked to Harper-Mercer also contained praise for Roanoke shooter Vester Lee Flanagan, saying that people “like him have nothing left to live for.” Harper-Mercer is quoted as saying:

On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are.

A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

The Washington Times has reported that Harper-Mercer’s shooting should be classified as a hate crime, because he specifically targeted Christians during his rampage.

Stacey Boylan, the mother of one of the witnesses to the shooting, told reporters that he asked potential victims whether or not they were Christian. He would have them stand up and then he would reply, “Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second.” And then he would shoot and killed them.

It goes without saying that President Obama mentioned little or none of this in his speech on the matter last night, choosing to instead blame the entire incident on guns. His lapdog press, as would be expected, went right along with him and refused to report anything that contradicted Obama’s spin … especially the suspect’s possible link to a supporter of Islamic terrorism.


I really do miss the days when you could say the press was objective, impartial and you could believe what they reported.

The newest rage … “Pseudo Intellectualism”


Dan Gilbert commented that:

“Intellectuals” these days are an interesting breed. Historically intellectuals enjoyed exploring all aspects of a given situation. They compared facts, sought out further study if the research wasn’t clear. They enjoyed defending their opponent’s position to strengthen their own case. Intellectuals valued the intellect and constructive debate. They were very concerned with the preservation of the concept of free speech, valuing opinions different from their own.

Today, so-called intellectuals seek to limit speech, ideas, and opinions other than ideologically approved ones. We hear – case closed, the science is settled, alternative opinions are due to ignorance and other statements that no true intellectual in history would be comfortable with. This is dogma masquerading as intelligence and is dominant in today’s academic environment.

Politicians have latched on to this approach because it protects ideas with no depth or factual foundation, it helps to panic people and create a feeling of powerlessness, leading to more control over every aspect of our lives. A true intellectual will welcome debate, not criminalize those that hold different positions. We live in an age of deep ignorance lauded as the height of intellect, fantasy heralded as reality, and inflexible dogma held up as liberalism.

I have personally experienced this phenomena several time in discussion with liberal friends.  I have been in conversations where my more liberal friends are espousing some view on some topic be it the economy, fracking, healthcare, Global Warming, War of Terror, or whatever.  And in the course of the conversation, should you provide any evidence in support of a view contrary to their held views, it is summarily dismissed without discussion or further investigation.  Hardly an “intellectual” response.

A prime example of this is the issue of gun control.  Members of the anti-Second Amendment crowd, such  as Michael Bloomberg’s newly-repackaged “Every Town for Gun Safety” have repeatedly been caught red-handed lying and creating false narratives about gun violence.  And while tragic gun violence should be addressed, as a nation we never want to address the real issues  involved and instead simple want to ban a tool which the U.S. Constitution affirms and guarantees the American people the right to use.  Unfortunately like any tool, a gun can be used for both good and bad.

The truth is that the recent shooting at the Church in South Caroline is a prime example of why stricter gun laws do not work.  Especially if, as Vice-President Joe Biden admitted on national television in the last election, the federal government doesn’t have time to enforce the gun laws already on the books.  The shooter in this case already could not legally own or buy a gun because of a previous felony drug conviction and the family has already admitted, and then later recanted the statement, that the boy’s father bought the gun for him on his 21st birthday.  This would already be a felony under federal law and punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment (perhaps this is why they recanted the earlier statement).  How would a stricter gun lay have prevented this?  Explain it to me please.

Also the church was a “gun free” zone, so the shooter knew he was safe to carry out his plan with little chance of anyone stopping him.  There is another recent and rather similar case in which a woman with a concealed carry permit and a hand gun stopped a shooter in his tracks in her church and saved the lives of many of her fellow parishioners.  Bet you won’t hear about that in the left-wing news.

More to the point, however, is that if you bring up the facts that statistics clearly prove states and cities that allow concealed carry permits all see measurable and significant reductions in violent crime, liberals summarily dismiss that as NRA propaganda that bears no further discussion.  They totally ignore the fact that the NRA gets its statistics from the FBI and, dare I say it, the former Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice.  That is because their “pseudo intellectualism” is driven by blind ideology and it can suffer no dissent.  It is a victimization-based, revenge-driven ideology that plays well to people with bumper slogan mentalities and it is an ideology that does not bode well for the success of Freedom, Liberty, Prosperity, and American Exceptionalism!

Are you “Proud to be White?”

There is an email circulating around with the subject line “Proud to be White!  This email claims that during the 503 days between the Travon Martin killing and the Zimmerman verdict, 10,865 blacks were killed by other blacks.  The emails then asks, “can you name one?”

Can you name any victims of white on white murders over the same time period?  Just asking!  Statistically speaking, people kill the people they know; loved ones, friends and neighbors.  Because people of different racial backgrounds tend to live clustered together, they are far more likely to kill someone of their own race than someone of another race.

This email then goes on to claim that the U.S. ranks third in the world for murders, but if you remove Chicago, Detroit, Washington, DC and New Orléans, the U.S. is then fourth from the bottom.  All four of these cities are controlled by democrats and have very tough gun laws, so the inference is clear.

Let’s look at some facts.  images

Black on Black Murder Numbers: 10, 865 Blacks Killed by Other Blacks

The number of black-on-black murders in 2012 is better estimated at 6,002. According to Bureau of Justice statistics, the percentage of total homicides with black victims where the offender is also black has remained stable for years at 93 (As a side note, the rate for the percentage of total homicides with white victims where the offender is also white is 85).  According to FBI statistics, the total number of homicides in 2012 with black victims in the United States is 6,454.  If we apply the historically constant rate of 93 to that number, we get a fairly accurate estimate of 6,002 black-on-black homicides. The first number is what can be proven.  The second number is simply a fairly good estimate.

U.S. murder ranking claim: United States is third highest.

The most correct way of comparing countries is to look at the rate of homicides, or how many homicides there were for every 100,000 people.  According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in 2012 the U.S had a homicide rate of 4.7.  This rate is not even in the top 100.

By contrast, Honduras  is number 1 in the world and has a murder rate of 90.7, which is almost 20 times higher.  According to the United Nations, the U.S. is even a good bit below the global homicide average of 6.2.  I am not a big fan of the U.N., but you do have to get your global statistics from somewhere, and not just pull them out of thin air.

The email could be referring to the number of murders and not the rate, but even if you look at the number of murders which does not account for population differences, according to the U.N., in 2012 the U.S. is eighth behind Brazil, India, Nigeria, Mexico. Congo, South Africa and Venezuela.

Remove Four cities: United States drops to fourth from the bottom

The email also states that if just four cities with democrat mayors were removed from the tally of U.S. murders, this would plunge the country from third highest to fourth lowest in the murder rankings.

According to the FBI, in 2012, Chicago had 500 homicides, Detroit 386, New Orléans 193 and the District of Columbia 88.  This gives us an actual  total of 1,167 murders.  That same year, the United States had 14,827 homicides.  If we subtract those four cities, the murder total becomes 13,660. This will give us a drop in the homicide rate of 4.35, resulting in a drop of only 3 or 4 spots in the world rankings. This is nowhere near the bottom four. The bottom fourth and fifth spots are now held by Japan and Iceland with a homicide rate around 0.3 per 100,000.

And again, if we use the number of murders and not the rate,  when we remove those four cities, the U.S. would drop only two spots, below Colombia and Pakistan.   The U.S. would still, however, rank in the top 10.

The assertion that democrat mayors and tough gun control laws contribute to the higher murder rates is interesting.  However, not all democrats favor tougher gun laws and, in fact, some republicans do favor tougher gun laws.  Chris Christie comes to mind.

It is clear the cities and states allowing concealed carry do experience a drop in violent crime. Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.

Here are some other facts:

Fact: Gun homicides were 10% higher in states with restrictive CCW laws, according to a study spanning 1980-2009.

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).

Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed.  Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second.  Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.

Fact:  More to the point, crime is much higher in states without right-to-carry laws.

Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.

Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

It is also important to note that the murder rate dropped by 17.54 percent between 2005 and 2012.  Kelly Riddell, who wrote an article describing how concealed-carry applications were out pacing ObamaCare applications, said “a July study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans have permits to carry concealed weapons, a 147 percent increase from 4.5 million seven years ago. Meanwhile, homicide and other violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.”

So by all means, be Proud to be White.  I certainly am.  But folks should also be Proud to be Black, Hispanic, American Indian, Alaskan Eskimo, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Arabic, or Jewish!  Take pride in your background, culture and ancestry.  Have the open-mindedness to respect and admire the good things from other cultures, races and ethnicities.  Perhaps most importantly, be Proud to be an American.  This is a great nation with a proud history.  It would be a real shame to lose all that to a handful of race-baiters and Alinskytes!

Gun Control Advocates Pushing Hard to Create More Helpless Victims

Handguns prohibited

Handguns prohibited (Photo credit: Jim Carson)

The UK banned handguns in 1997. The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead. Sounds eerily familiar doesn’t it.
The last estimate I saw on cia world fact book (which granted … was a few years back) was 6 million illegal handguns in the UK. Contrary to what you read in Wikipedia (or hear in the American drive-by media), BBC reported that, “A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.”
Research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance‘s Campaign for Shooting, concluded that the UK’s existing gun laws merely targeted legitimate users of firearms … and did nothing to prevent criminals from accessing and using guns for illegal purposes.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out its own research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. These are facts and numbers … not emotion-based arguments.
Real numbers show that American states and cities that issue concealed carry permits see a real drop in violent crime; while gun-free zones merely provide good hunting grounds for sociopathic killers. Connecticut already had draconian gun laws in place … have you tried to legally own a gun in Connecticut.
The argument for gun control is based on emotions … fear; and  labeling … and then demonizing an inanimate object all the while ignoring the real problem; the deplorable state of morality in America and the refusal of society to hold individuals accountable for their own actions. The argument against stricter gun laws is based on real numbers and historical evidence.
Part of the problem is that too many people get their ” facts” from the liberal mass media, and so they only hear the demonizing. Yes, this horrifying incident in Connecticut was tragic beyond belief.  But many facts about the circumstances of the case are not being discussed.  Instead, we have liberals screaming for more restrictions and gun bans … and disarming law-abiding, honest Americans.  In reality, if they succeed, they will only succeed in creating more potential victims and will not impact criminals in the least!
By definition … criminals do not obey laws.

Media Matters Founder Wants Armed Protection … just not for you!


The founder of Media Matters, David Brock, recently accepted more than $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation.  This money was specifically earmarked to promote a $600,000 initiative on “gun and public safety issues” which is simply liberal double-speak for “more gun ban efforts.”  However, it seems David Brock walks the streets of Washington protected by a Glock toting personal assistant/bodyguard!  If it weren’t for the hypocrisy of most liberals, this might make it a little awkward for the group the next time it seeks a donation from a gun control advocacy group.

It is also typical that the liberal champion, David Brock, feels his life is certainly worthy of protection under the Second Amendment (hence, the bodyguard armed with a Glock).   It is just you and I whose lives, it seems, Brock deems are not worthy of the very same protection!  I remember comedian Rosie O’Donnell having the same view.  She also felt that the Second Amendment should go away … just as long as she got to travel around with her armed bodyguards.

Read more:

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future


Image by art_es_anna via Flickr

Accoring to Sam Stein of the Huffington Post,  Obama is preparing to soon try and change gun laws in this country.  Of course, because he will be unable to get a bill through Congress, he will attempt to do it illegally … by imperial decree (oops … my bad!  I meant Executive Order).   Two quotes from recent history should be remembered by real patriotic Americans:

  • “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.“— Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
  • This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” — Adolph Hitler, Chancellor, Germany, 1933

Just a little food for thought!  Especially since it is conservatives who are always being compared to Nazis by the progressive-liberals and the drive-by media!

The True Source Of the Second Amendment


Second Amendment

It amazes me just how many Americans do not understand the concept of Second Amendment Rights and where  this American right originates.  Even American’s who support the Second Amendment, own firearms, join the NRA, and exercise their rights under the Second Amendment daily often misunderstand its origins.  

What is scary to me, however, is that the left-wing liberals certainly seem to, at least on one level, understand the reason that the Founding Fathers  wrote Second Amendment and included it in the Bill of Rights.  That is why they are so intent on eliminating the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Of  course, you have to understand that most liberals in this country are not liberals at all … at least not in the true sense of the liberal ideology.  True liberals, as a general rule, would not support gun control because it is a violation of a personal freedom ….  and all liberals certainly claim to strongly support individual freedom.  This is the root of their support for the gay movement, women’s rights to murder 1.37 million American babies each year, legalizing drugs, PETA, terrorist’s rights, and the drive-by media’s right to commit libel and slander against conservatives with impunity while openly supporting their chosen liberal politicians during elections.  

In this country, the term liberal is most often used to hide the true identity of anti-American movements.  The ACLU, for example, originated as a communist organization dedicated to bringing about a peaceful transition  to a communist American state.  When the ACLU’s founding members discovered that the term communist was working against them because of the stigma attached to it, they simply changed their name.  

Many other “liberals” in this country are simply socialists; but because this term also still has a stigma attached to it, they choose to hide behind the term “liberal.”  

Then we also have the liberal “fascists”  … like Barack Obama quickly seems to be turning out to be.  What kind of government allows private ownership of business, but tells you how to run them …..   look it up!

So, what does this have to do with gun control.  Despite the fact that many cool-aid drinking liberal followers live in a dream world where we all sit around the global campfire singing Kumbaya,  their leaders (the movers and shakers of the liberal elitist movement) are actually very intelligent.  They understand that, with the exception of California and the New England states, the backbone of real America is still made up of bitter common folk who cling to their Bibles and their Guns;  and … that these bitter (or shall we say Freedom Loving Rugged Individualists) simply do not want to live in a socialist (or a fascist) nanny state.  Their solution, then, is to lie, cheat, misinterpret, play on fears, elect any and all rabid anti Second Amendment politicians (or  judges) they can find, use their control of the mass media, and otherwise work to dissolve our Second Amendment rights.


America's 1st Freedom


Because of this on-going assault on the Second Amendment, we often hear some really odd soundbites such as

its people like you who will hand the White House over to some COMMI DEMOCRAT, who will elect some liberal Supreme Court Justices … and they will destroy the Second Amendment  

or even such nonsense as …  

the jack-booted feds will roll you up like an old carpet.  If you think you can resist them then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge.  All the good sheeple will fall in line … or die.  

Rhetoric such as this is silly and misses the point entirely.

Implicit in comments such as these is the idea that our rights, including those validated under the Second Amendment, are somehow granted to us by the 9 old men and women on the Supreme Court; or from our legislature; or from our president.  Implicit in these comments is the idea that the right to Keep And Bear Arms actually comes from the Second Amendment itself.  This is a fallacy.  The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, the legislature, and the presidency are all thing created by men, and thus, they can be taken away by other men.




The truth is that the Second Amendment (and the other rights listed in the bill of Rights) simply acknowledges and allows us to protect our Inalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty, and  the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Depending on your personal belief system, these rights would be granted to us as either Natural Rights based on our condition of being Human Beings …. or as Divine Rights granted to us by God.  

Such rights are yours from the moment of your birth and cannot be taken away by other men … unless you allow that to happen.

Of course we can write our congressmen, join the NRA or the GOA, write letters to the editor, argue cases in court, and work hard to elect pro-gun legislators … and we should certainly be doing all these things.  However, our Second Amendment rights are not based on the outcome of these mechanisms.  Those “liberals” currently in power like Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano, Sarah Bradey, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor among others, would certainly want to have you believe that it does; and will certainly work to convince you that it does … but, in truth …. it does not.

Our Right To Bear Arms rests entirely upon our willingness to stop, by whatever means necessary, anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms do is simply postpone any coming day of reckoning … which is certainly worth doing as long as it is feasibly possible.  

However, any political or governmental entity acting to confiscate or deny an honest, law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms is acting in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a legitimate government agency.


God given. Not negotiable.


And for those of you who will certainly, without thinking or doing any research, chime in and exclaim … “but that’s not what the Second Amendment means” …  “its about militias, not individuals” … ” it is outdated because it was written 200 years ago” …  you should remember that your precious Freedom of Speech was acknowledged and guaranteed at precisely the same time

… and take the time to look at and actually read some of the historical quotes listed below.  You might gain some “intelligence.”

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) 

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

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) 

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) 

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) 

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) 

“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 #46 at 243-244) 

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) 

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)) 

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) 

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) 

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) 

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) 

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) 

“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, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) 

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..) 

“The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) 

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) 

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) 

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939) 

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

“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) 

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]) 

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,) 

“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]) 

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]) 

“Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755]) 

“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New-England) 

“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) 

(The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, “Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)] 

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823] 

“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46”) 

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]) 

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979]) 

“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.] 

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] 

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)] 

” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] 

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)] 

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] 

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] 

73% Of Americans Support The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Founding Fathers

Do you need more proof that a majority of Americans support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? What about the results of a Gallup poll, which were reported in a March 27, article. The poll shows that an overwhelming majority of the United States public … 73% … believes that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms.

For most real Americans, these results come as no surprise. In fact, the Gallup poll reflects comparable results from a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll carried out from December 6 to December 9 in 2007, which found that 65% of Americans believed the Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms.

Other recent polls have shown that Americans support gun rights. A Zogby International poll for Associated Television News, conducted between December 13 and December 17 in 2007 found that 27% of voters would be more likely to support a candidate endorsed by NRA (through its PAC, NRA Political Victory Fund). That survey showed that NRA ranks above Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, the AFL-CIO, Oprah Winfrey, and Barbara Streisand in influencing voters! And another Zogby International poll conducted earlier in 2007 found that 66% of the American voting public rejects the idea that new gun control laws are needed.

The results of this latest poll make clear where the majority of Americans stand, and confirm what other polls have consistently shown: Americans overwhelmingly support firearm rights and ownership.

Clinton & Obama Wage War On Law-Abiding American Citizens!

You would expect that, in America, if a violent criminal broke into your home with the intent of robbing or killing you, our government would defend your right to defend yourself. You might also expect that our police would arrest that criminal, our criminal system would prosecute and sentence that criminal, and then our prison system would lock him up. But, unfortunately, that is simply not the case.

Home Invasions

Thousands of armed, violent foreign criminals are crossing our borders and entering our country. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, more than 595, 000 criminal aliens have crossed our borders into America and they are still here. These criminals are not immigrants working hard to make a living for their families. These criminals are violent and deal in drugs, human trafficking, prostitution, grand larceny, brutal attacks, rape, murder, and vendetta killings of anyone who stands in their way. They may even be smuggling terrorists across our borders.

To make matters worse, Federal prosecutors can’t even deport them if they come from certain countries. It seems that we have laws on our books that prohibit the deportation of violent criminals to countries that do not have an extradition treaty with the U.S.; … this includes countries like Iran, a known exporter of criminals and terrorists. … El Salvador, which refuses to take back ultra-violent MS-13 gang members, … and others like Cuba, Jamaica, and Nigeria


Someday, hopefully, our government may wake up and pass a real and comprehensive illegal immigration bill and take real steps to secure our borders … but don’t hold your breath! It won’t happen under the current administration and it definitely will not happen under a Clinton or Obama administration.

Politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Ted Kennedy believe that the answer to the criminal alien problem is taking away your right, under the Second Amendment, to defend yourself with a firearm.

Schumer, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy

Clinton, Obama, and Kennedy work to block “Castle Doctrine” laws that protect your right to defend your home and family with a firearm. They work to oppose laws that give you the right to carry, and they work to prevent a nationwide law that validates your right-to-carry permit in every state. They even support efforts to give local officials the power to confiscate your guns in time of emergency.

That, my friends, is purely and simply, a violation of our constitutional rights as Americans … and … pure insanity!

After Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans officials went door-to-door confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless while the 9-1-1 system was down and useless, and violent criminals, including known criminal aliens, were running rampant.

1775 & 2005

Hillary Clinton’s answer was to be one of the sixteen Senators who voted to allow the government to come into our homes and confiscate our guns. Somehow she always manages to turn violent crime perpetrated by criminals into an argument for taking guns away from law-abiding citizens … but has she ever taken tough action against criminals, or criminal aliens? Of course not!

In the seven years Hillary Clinton has been a Senator, she has not supported one piece of legislation to put criminal aliens, and other violent criminals behind bars. When it comes to criminals, the only bill she has sponsored was a bill to restore voting rights to pedophiles, rapists, murders, robbers, and other violent felons.

And New York Governor Elliott Spitzer who, like Hillary Clinton, has done nothing to take violent criminals off the street … joins Hillary Clinton in this lunacy. His get tough on crime answer is to give them driver’s licenses!

In the 40 states where law-abiding citizens have the right to carry, crime has dropped, and citizens have the means to protect themselves from criminal aliens … but not in New York!

Right to Carry Map

And if Barack Obama gets his way … not in Illinois either. When Obama was a State Senator, he sponsored a bill requiring law-abiding citizens to appear before a police chief to receive permission to purchase a gun. Obama also served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, a rabid anti-gun money machine.

Obama, Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, and Feinstein are all the same. Anti-gun politicians always pretend they can’t hear you when you ask about violent criminals and criminal laws. But with over 595,000 violent criminals already in the country, these anti-American, gun-hating politicians are actually putting American lives in danger.

Of the 595,000 foreign criminals roaming our streets, the Federal government says that approximately 226,000 have previous U.S. convictions. They average 13 prior arrests … the majority of the crimes involving shocking acts of violence and depravity.

In 2006 alone, a frightening 26,000 criminal aliens attempting to enter our country were linked to violent crimes previously committed on U.S. soil. And what was their punishment? Border agents have no power to arrest them under current law, so they send them home … giving these dangerous criminals another chance to sneak into our country to commit further crimes against Americans.

Today, we are confronting the most dangerous criminals to ever enter our homeland. Our borders can’t stop them. Our prosecutors can’t try them, and our laws say we can’t put them away for good in U.S. prisons. All we can do is send them back home, leaving them free to re-enter our country and commit more heinous crimes. And … these politicians want to leave law-abiding Americans like you and me disarmed and defenseless against their violence.

I say that a politician, or a government, that values the rights of illegal immigrants and violent criminals more than the rights of its law-abiding citizens, and actively works to suppress the rights of citizens affirmed and guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, does not have a legitimate right to be in power and may, in fact, be guilty of crimes against the citizens of this country … including treason! And … in fact, Hillary Clinton, and her philandering husband Bill, have been associated with criminal activities and “mysterious” deaths since their days in the Governor’s mansion in Arkansas.

Obama Is No Patriot!

These left –wing, secular-progressive liberal democrats are working to make over 80 million law-abiding Americans … outlaws … with their unconstitutional assault on American rights and American sovereignty. That may truly end up being a grave mistake on their part!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 225 other followers

%d bloggers like this: