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

solgunsI 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.

supremeThis 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

founderspicI 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.

soulonfireIt is not my right, at that point, but 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 can not 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 can not 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.

thinkingYou 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?

Click Here to Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

IMPORTANT UPDATE From Dean Garrison!!! When this post originally went viral I was trying to answer every single comment and that lasted for almost 48 hours. Then I came to grips with the fact that I am human and I can’t do it. If for no other reason I value my family and I can’t steal time from them to constantly be on the site. I want you all to know that I appreciate your support and good debate whether you agree or disagree. I also want to thank each and every American Patriot who has made the honorable choice to serve their country. Anyone who wants to repost this on their blog or website is also given permission to do so, so long as nothing is changed in the text of the article, and a link is provided back to this site. Again, thank you so much. I am humbled. It’s now 16 days later and this is still the most popular post on our blog. Keep fighting for what is right. We must stand united. -Dean Garrison 1-20-13

About these ads

About Dean Garrison

Dean Garrison is a father of five, who faithfully pursues the American Dream. In the greatest country on earth there are hypocrites and liars abound, and he tries to expose them one at a time. It's time to get rid of the servant leaders who treat us as slaves.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5,139 Responses to If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

  1. 7delta says:

    New York Sheriffs Say No-Go on New Gun Laws: http://www.scribd.com/doc/122869353/Sheriff-s-Dept-PBA-blasts-new-gun-law

    County Sheriffs of Colorado: http://www.csoc.org/ppdocs/GunControlLegislation.pdf

    More Sheriffs: http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ And growing by the minute.

  2. 7delta says:

    I’m in moderation? Was it something I said?

  3. 7delta says:

    Nevermind, just realized it’s the links I posted.

  4. Kevin Dunn says:

    Very well written…Bravo Dean!

  5. Pingback: Guns, Wisdom, & Solomon | The Pink Flamingo

  6. Cpl. George Brown 1858228 says:

    Very well put !!!!!!!!You have dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s . Now I’d like to see a vote as to what the general public says. I was a Marine ,I fought for it and had brothers die for it. At 72 yrs. of age I shall do it again until my dying breath . God bless America

    • Warren Ellis says:

      I am a general public, I have never served my country in the Military (have had many family members who have including my father and my uncle who died in Nam) but I have great respect for those who have. Thank you! However, I consider myself a Patriot and I agree with what Mr. Garrison has written here. We are a “Constitutional Republic” I have no illusions about this and it is our duty to protect it and the Constitution that makes it so!

  7. C,V,(Bud) Norris says:

    I agree completely with Dean Garrison and would defend my rights completely.
    Why can’t we get enough politicians to start impeachment proceedings against Obama when he stomps all over our constitutional rights?
    If it was a republican president he would be impeached by now.

    • Good Question. I think the answer to that is we have a bunch of Republician and Democrat politicians that are sandbaggers. They continue to draw a pay check no matter what. They have passed laws that guarantees their retirement and if we are ever to get fair representation that is going to have to change.

      The politician of today can not be trusted to act on behalf of the people. They are greedy individuals with no other goal than to advance their own agenda. Therefore it is left to us to change all this corruption and get the government back to the business of securing the safety of America and its citizens, and helping to improve the economy so our unemployed can find jobs and support their families.

      I say either knock off the politics or get knocked off. It pass time to get tough. The people we elect should be held responsible, and that is actually why we should ignor any laws that restrict the ownership of guns. There is very little to like about the way the government opperates and they should be held to the same standards as every other employed individual. If they don’t do the job give them the boot.

      With the internet being as it is there is no reason why every citizen should not be involved in decision making. How many would vote to send our best military armor to Egypt, or any other country as far as that goes? How many citizens would vote to give billions to countries that openly say they hate us? Those good for nothing fucking politicans wanted to vote themselves a pay raise! WTF??? I say fire every single damn fucking one of them.

      Close and guard our borders. Use our military to protect us from foreign aggression. There is not a country in the world that would fuck with us. Bomb our enemies into Oblivion. We don’t need them or care a damn about them and there is no reason to send them cash, that we don’t have and have to borrow. If we have to bomb them to protect ourselves the hell with rebuilding their country, let them rebuild their own country. Maybe there won’t be a second time anymore.

      I apologize for the language, but I am totally fed up with it. If they want to hate us, we should give them a legitimate reason. Same goes for liberals and everyone else that wants to oppress us as a freedom loving nation. I want to see the Whitehouse Muslim free and a non racist Commander-In-Chief that actually loves America and honors our Constitution that millions have fought and died for.

      • Russ says:

        Very well said!!! I agree it’s time to clean house. It’s time to act not just sit around and hope it gets better…..
        As far as them coming for my guns they can have them when they pry them from my COLD DEAD HANDS !!!
        If I’m going to die I’m going to die a free man …

      • SC Patriot 4 2-A says:

        The real patriots of the 1700’s and early 1800’s are gone. We have no real patriots in Washington anymore to stand up for the people who put them there. Now they have made it a job of comfort. After all, they only have to be elected once and they are set for retirement the rest of their life. Pretty good deal if you ask me!

      • The supreme courts only job, is to protect the constitution, We have Elena Kagan who served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of 2011. In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court. A simple search of the high court’s own website reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times. Docket for 09-6790 , Docket for 09-8857 , Docket for 08-10382 , Docket for 08-8145 , Docket for 09-724 , Docket for 09A381 , Docket for 09-581 , Docket for 08M38.
        The fact Kagan handled these cases. “She was the solicitor general for all the suits against the Indonesian usurper, filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural-born citizenship. All of the requests were denied of course, They were never heard. That was the primary reason Oboma selected her. It is my humble opinion the supreme court is also defiled. John Roberts swore in a man who would not qualify to drive a cab. His birth certificate has been deemed a fraudulent document. His selective service card is also a forgery. The social security card he uses fails E-Verify. Nothing Oboma does is legal wen his very position was gained in fraud. and the politicians say nope, nope, nope, nope. do not rock my boat, nope, nope, nope!

        • Brad says:

          Kind of defies common sense, doesn’t it? I truly believe we are going to have to start calling it “Uncommon Sense”.

          Does anyone else have this feeling of incredulity that I have? I am flabbergasted by the rampant ignorance displayed by our citizenry. It seems as though someone put “dumb dumb drops” in the water (must be the fluoride, it is a neurotoxin you know). Thank God I have an artisan well. I almost feel as though I just woke up and discovered that my country was taken over by idiots.

        • Thanks for the heads up in regards to my post. It always a welcome read when someone like yourself fortifies and adds useful and verifiable information as you have. It was very interesting to read about Elena Kagan who served as solicitor general of the United States. I have saved your posts in docs. for future reference. We are experiencing very frustrating and dangerious times.

          Our only hope of a peaceful outcome is people like Sen. Graham and Sen.McCain. They and other decent Representatives need to keep the heat on obama and follow through with some very tough questions. I think under the right circumstances, like maybe offering amnesty instead of jail time, someone will be willing to fess up.

          With President R. Nixon a lot of people went to jail and some left the country to live in Canada and other places. The ones who left the country were offered amnesty. (Names are available with a little effort). But in obama’s case he should be offered nothing more than three squares in Gitmo.
          ‘obama has quite literrally brought Uncle Sam to his knees and to be honest, anything short of hanging, could be considered as insufficient punishment.

          But even then the country wouldn’t be out of the woods untill all three branches of the government has been purged of all the dirty rotten rats that have been misrepresentating and living off the American citiizens who work hard and support the government by paying taxes. Fraud is running rampant, not only in the in the whitehouse and congress, but also in the supreme court.

          Didn’t mean to make this long of a post but if I really got going I could write a novel about all my complaints and questions.

          • Chip Burgess says:

            Sen McCain is NOT one of the good ones. FAR FAR from it! Go take a look at his voting record.

            • Thom says:

              You are absolutely right about McCain, But I am happy with the way he has been performing as of late, so much so that I may have given him more praise than he deserves.

    • Jack says:

      Mr. Norris, in answer to your question. It’s because most politicians don’t have the balls it takes or the belief to stand up to a want to be Hitler type. I also agree with Mr. Garrison, COMPLETLY.

      • Oswald Bastable says:

        I believe it’s because they (politicians on both sides) are particularly happy and satisfied with their rarefied positions (not answerable to anyone except at election time when the lies about what and who they represent come out in sound bites meant to play well and distract from their true aims) as minor demiurges insulated from and immune to the laws they pass upon us, the little people.

        Like the aristocracy and monarchs of days past, they have no fear of the serfs…they have knights and pikemen at the ready to fend any minor uprising off, caring not about the losses among the proles. And they have campaign machines and managers at the ready every few years to make them appear good and decent at election time, with rhetoric and lies well formed enough to ensure their re-elections (for the most part)…and barring re-election, golden parachutes to keep them comfortable (economically and physically insulated from the little people) enough for their foreseeable futures.

        For the most part, our “politicians” are but blood sucking parasites feeding and reveling in their power over the body politic…giving truth to the adage: Politics – “poly” meaning many, “ticks” meaning blood sucking parasites.

        We have become no different than most European socialist countries, though we fail to recognize it here, where the two parties are essentially the same face…one on the fast road to true communism, the other, simply delaying it until the proles can be conditioned to accept true communism.

        It is not because they don’t have the balls, it is because their balls are all in the leftist court, to one extent or another.

        And anyone who wants to play on the conservative/free court is to be destroyed by the openly left, hung out to dry by the covertly left, as Allen West of Florida found out.

        Hell, even Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have proven their true allegiance lately…supporting leftist ideals in complete contradiction to everything they supposedly stood for previously…all to secure their pensions, sinecures (so as not to be marginalized by the continued leftward trend of the “so called conservative” Republican party) and committee appointments.

        We’ve been sold out by the left, and betrayed by the “so called” right…all for a nice cushy living at our expense, and protection from “we the people” should things get dicey based on their perfidy.

        • Brad says:

          Oswald, that was very well summed up and spot on. True conservatives are the last vestige of hope for a free society, all else is nothing but illusion. Scary as hell, and it makes our task seem utterly impossible. Almost all of the pieces are in place, and it will only be a short time before the “iron fist” of tyranny squashes what little resistance remains. I can just see these liberals faces when they finally realize they have been duped. If you think they are rabid now, just wait until they discover that they have outlived their usefulness and are lumped in with the rest of us. Their will be no sympathy from me.

        • To be fair, Ron and Rand are both Libertarians that ran on the Republican ticket. And honestly, they have some of the best ideas for our country as far as individual Liberty and Freedom are concerned. That’s my big problem with the Republican party, they tie too much religion into their ideals and expect everyone else to follow along with it, which is the complete antithesis of what being a Conservative used to mean. Freedom means being allowed to do what you want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The worst of the left is their push to abdicate personal rights and responsibilities to the state. Other than that, I have little problems with their social ideas. It all comes down to freedom. Who cares if a man wants to marry another man? Nobody is making a die-hard Christian get involved with gay marriage, and there is no evidence to show that gay marriage damages the ‘institution of marriage’. Who cares if someone wants to own an ‘assault rifle’? Nobody is making hoplophobes go out and buy guns, and there is no evidence to show that law abiding gun owners are a danger to society.

          As far as I’m concerned, you can’t be for one right or expression of freedom without being for them all. Just let people be and let them do what they want.

          • Brad says:

            Daniel, I am afraid that I would have to disagree most vociferously. In theory some of what you say is correct, but the problem is that the left and the homosexuals are anything but “liberal” in the dictionary definition of the word.

            Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
            b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

            I know there are other definitions as well, but liberal also means the above, and those who call themselves LIBERALS are neither “free from bigotry” nor are they “tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others or broad-minded”. Especially when others views are contrary to theirs.

            Here is an example for you: If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he/she won’t buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, they want them banned for everyone.

            Do you see the difference? There is no “live and let live” with the left or with the homosexual communities. They have an agenda, PERIOD! They are in your face and demand that all accept them and subscribe to their views and if you don’t, then you are a hater, a racist or worse. They do not want to assimilate into our culture, they want us to conform to them and accept them in all of their debauchery. If they kept it behind closed doors, that would be one thing (between them and God), but that is not what they want.

            As for your comments on religion, I will direct you to a portion of George Washington’s Farewell Address:

            “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

            And as for your final statement: “Just let people be and let them do what they want.” There was a school in New York back in the 60’s that allowed the student to do whatever they wanted. Go to class or not go to class, study or not, you can do no wrong. It was a miserable failure. People need structure and boundaries or they will self implode, that is why we have government. And our grand experiment is “a government of the people by the people and for the people”. Unfortunately those “elected” representatives have forgotten who they work for and now believe that they are the aristocracy and “we the people” are their subjects. Their view is and will soon be manifest “Conform or die!”

            • Well, that’s why I’m not a Democrat. I don’t agree with either major party. Though I also agree with your statement about needing boundaries. Using a college during the 60s is a horrible comparison to average citizens. It still doesn’t change the fact that the boundaries should be as little restricting as possible and should give a person the freedom to make the choices they want in life. Even with the college, those who chose not to complete their coursework would not have graduated. Isn’t that a prime example of how the choices we make have consequences?

              • Brad says:

                Daniel, I absolutely agree that there are problems with both of the major political parties. I just personally believe there are a lot more problems with the Democrats then with the Republicans. I would much rather lean Right with emphasis on personal responsibility and individual choice, then to lean Left with Liberal/Progressive, Nanny State/Big Government telling us what you can and cannot do, and also what you MUST do, as well as the incessant infringement on personal liberty.

                The example of the school in the 60’s although not a perfect example, does show what human nature is like without at least guidelines/boundaries. And in this example, graduation was not predicated on work, but on just being there. Drug abuse was rampant, sexual promiscuity abounded and almost no one advanced in educational learning. When reward/advancement was not tied to personal responsibility and effort, there was no motivation to achieve.

                You can even look at the early settlers of our nation. When (I believe it was Jamestown), was founded, there were communal gardens to provide the food for everyone. All were supposed to work in it, but few rarely did. They all expected everyone else to do the work for them. It was really an experiment in communism/collectivism. That first year more than half of the settlement died of starvation. The next year everyone was responsible to grow their own food in their own garden and all thrived.

                I also agree with you on the boundaries issue (limited government). As least restrictive as necessary, which is what the original meaning/intent of the Constitution was. But now you have out of control government, and I don’t mean just the Executive Branch, but all three of them are slowly chipping away at the constitution, personal liberty and individual responsibility. All of them need to be fired and replaced. They have forgotten their place and for whom they work.

                When this country was first founded, serving in the Senate and the Congress was a hardship, but was also considered a duty. Many of our first “government workers” lost their properties and livelihood as a result of performing their civic duties. Now, they believe that they are our betters, aristocracy if you will, and that we are simple serfs without the ability to determine what is best for ourselves. They believe that we are too stupid and that they must save us from ourselves by taking away our personal liberties and forcing their will upon us.

                They have done this in a slow and methodical process. I am sure that you have heard about how to boil a live frog. If you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out and escape. But if you put the frog in a pot of cool water and slowly raise the temperature, it will sit in there until it boils to death. That is what our government is doing to us. If they took away all of our liberties at once, there would be a rebellion. But when they take them away one at a time, soon we have no ability to rebel, and we are doomed.

                “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
                Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

                • Daniel says:

                  I certainly identify more with conservatives than I do with liberals. I just wish the republican party would leave religion as a personal decision and stop attacking science so much (usually because of religion).

              • @Daniel Foreacre:
                Because some students fail to graduate makes it OK to burn down colleges and universities? Maybe I didn’t catch the real meaning of that statement. And just because I am curious, what borders are you suggesting need to be no more restrictive than what it would take to make it easy for free people to move about? If you’re referring to international borders I have to stratch my head and wonder what are you talking about? Do you believe our international borders are to restrictive now?

                Perhaps you live in a state without an international border. Or maybe you listen to the MSM which comes up short when reporting on anything that may shed a bad light on the democrats . I guess it could be because they are so busy running down the republicans. Having said that you probably think I am republican, if so, I want you know I am not. Matter of fact I am totally anti-government as I believe the government is doing more dictating than governing. Are you a ‘duck” fan?

  8. Pingback: Daniel Vitalis on Gun Control | One Radio Network

  9. Pingback: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? « The Insomniac Libertarian

  10. Pingback: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? « Conservative Animal

  11. Pingback: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? | DC Libertarians

  12. Ruth says:

    Dean very well said. There are several concepts I would like to add. The people do not receive their rights from the Constitution. Their rights are God given and discussed in the Declaration of Independence and certainly preceded any Constitution. Our Constitution created and defined the Federal Government. In Law the created can never be greater than the creator. The municipality of Washington D. C. is not one of the several states; it is foreign to the states. The states are superior in law to the federal government; the states created the federal government. The people created the states and gave some rights to their respective states, the states in turn charter the the federal government giving it some responsibilities for the purpose of making the interaction between the states run more smoothly. The federal government has slyly manipulated the national conversation by discussing all topics from the perspective of a federal citizen…. a concept that came in to being with the 14th amendment. Other wise people were Citizens of their State first. Each State is still a sovereign country. This fact is evidenced by current case law: Cites can be given if interested.

    In this light what is going on makes more sense. The Federal government by many means (too many and involved to list here) has made the American people believe that they are and have to be a Federal Citizen and be subject to the uncontrolled rule of the US government . The Federal -US Government does have unlimited control over Washington DC and its citizens where ever they are. People are born State Citizens and have to contract away their rights for privileges. But they are not told that they are doing this. The Federal Citizen does not enjoy the rights described by the Declaration of Independence and that is why the officers of the Federal US Government do not respect their “subject citizens”.

    Bottom line the American people are mislead to believe that the Constitution gives them rights it only gives contractual rights to the Federal Government and discusses several rights specifically retained by the people and the Tenth Amendment clearly describes this: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

    Our thinking must go beyond right /left, Democrat/Republican, conservative/liberal. We have to understand state/federal citizenship and consciously choose which one we want to be. Do we want our God given rights as sentience human beings or do we want privileges legislated: given and taken away at the whim of the powerful.

    • JIm says:

      Well said Ruth, I thought I was the only one that knew what was actually happening. I’m glad you took the time to write about it, because it needed to be said.

      • Ruth says:

        Jim, Thank you for your comment. Yes it is nice to hear others are aware of the things we see otherwise it is lonely. This dialog must continue, for if we can educate…. or get our neighbors to just see the logic we would be able to take our county back without any unruly behavior.

    • Fredaurick Alyon Ashaur says:

      Ruth I first want to thank you for an insight&fact that will be VERY useful in my book upcoming (“THOSE 52 WORDS!”) that I have on this blog of his given him full usage with my Blessings for so doing -Thank you Ruth!
      Ruth there is something a mind as agile as yours obviously is that needs clearing up -or is it clearing o-u-t. To be direct Ruth, you are for whatever reasons still under the illusion that is VERY carefully abetted in the Old South to this day. Namely the idea of ‘states rights’…. If you will really p-o-n-d-e-r…. that 10th Amendment it is really rather
      a giving one and taking away nine as the old English one liner has it. (As also the 16th
      clause of Section 8 of Article 1 does in regard to the training of STATES militias -check it out, its almost a slap at the States -Hamilton was even against ANY ‘states militias’ because they had done SO BADLY in the Revolution -so that almost pretending but not
      really giving them ANY REAL control over their militias 16th clause bears out what I’m
      bringing to your attention here. Namely that the Constitution OPENLY REVISES AND
      CORRECTS the rather hippie and pie in the sky ‘enlightenment’ ideas of Jefferson &
      Co. AFTER the dust settled and TWELVE YEARS of ‘states rights’ SO DAMFOOL ORNERY AND EVEN TREASONOUS, the men of 1787 -no longer mere lefties and so on from ’76 FORGED A R-E-A-L -and WORKABLE C-O-D-E that was NOT AT ALL a
      mere Roussean Hippie ‘declaration’ -even where it WAS RIGHT in ’76!
      Too many people have ever since Appomattox kept right on Rebel-mumbling around and around about ‘states rights’ -ALSAYS in the efforts to VIOLATE ALL OUR REAL Rights! (Gingrich’s South and so called ‘republicans’ down there would $TILL put the
      black man in slavery, jail, or Africa -and clap for anyone doing it! They would $TILL be
      the same goddam redneck riffraffy beer bellied tobacco chawin’ Bilbos and Wallaces in the school house doors! THAT is A-L-L that ‘states rights’ -nowhere in the Constitution
      does THAT miserable quisling phrase occur!- WA$ about I$ about and in every yapping
      would be secessionist -like even Rick Perry let off with twice in less than half an hour!-
      Its too bad you and so many are either willingly ignorant of all THIS…, or are just flat out unawares of our REAL history as a NATION, not a bunch of “each state a sovereign nation” -no less. THAT is sheer hooey; George Washington $HOULD have ARRESTED
      CONGRESS -so called!- and MADE them actually B-E a REAL Congress instead of 13
      mutually standing each other OFF ON PURPOSE just like the repubs today are MISdoing even from a mere stratagey point of view….!! (He almost did….)
      Ruth, what happened -in secret because THEY TOO were so FRACTURED by such as most of the rightwingnuts of today are SO PROUD of inflicting on our Nation before
      the whole wide world- HAD to happen. Even then the body of the Constitution that follows THOSE FIFTY TWO WORDS OF DEDICATION-ALLEGIANCE…. was VERY flawed to say the kindest of it. It was either get their HEADS OUT of the hippy trippy and
      get with THE REAL WORLD of REAL ENEMIES “FOREIGN A-N-D DOMESTIC” and set
      up a NATION, not a passel of ‘states’ with mutually standoffy ‘rights’ when only PEOPLE yes WE THE P-E-O-P-L-E have OUR Godgiven RIGHTS because they are MORALLY the RIGHT things to do and be and pass on to “our posterity!!
      If you will REALLY r-e-a-d that Section 8 -E-N-T-I-R-E AS THE ONE SENTENCE ONLY THAT IT WAS AND I-S…, I trust you will $-E-E that it is CONGRESS that
      shall have POWER -stated TWICE OVER to make “ALL laws NECESSARY and
      (constitutionally) PROPER” to sweepingly OVERRULE ALL within this UNITED
      states (NOT united STATES only!) Or, if its easier, just ponder Those 52 Words of
      our Highest Possible ON THIS EARTH Dedications & Allegiances SIX…, and note well that it is WE THE PEOPLE….(that) DO ORDAIN A-N-D Establish THIS Constitution
      FOR the UNITED states of AMERICA -not a mere 13 -or 50 ‘states each a sovereign nation’!
      I know, sadly too well that EVERY DAMFOOL YEAR the Alaska legislature tosses up for debate a bill to SECEDE from the UNION! And a lot of people who are up in arms about Obama are even MORE UNconstitutional than he is or is likely to be allowed to get…. No kidding Ruth, we have MORE to fear from dry drug addicts like
      Rush Limbaugh than we do from ‘Rev’ Jeremiah Wright -or the Black Panther pals of Hussein Obama. Obama HAS both SINNED against his PROFESSED christianity AND may yet come out in this gun fooferah AGAINST the Constitution -yes he HAS!
      But people like Gingrich, Perry, Ron Paul, and Limbaugh are merely RICH LIAR$ AND DEVIOUSLY SUBVERSIVE MIS-PATRIOTS TO THE DAMNABLE OLD DIXIE that cost us 600 THOUSAND young lives and twice as many wounded in a Civil War
      that THEY $ET UP AND BROUGHT ON HELL BENT AND STILL UNREPENTANT AND DUMB AS MUD TO THIS VERY MOMENT -with no let up in sight….
      THAT…, Ruth is what is REALLY ailing AMERICA -rich rotten rabid ‘republican$’ who LIE IN THEIR TEETH LIKE NIXON when the truth would $erve better…..!
      I was and am the only and the truest REAL GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN ON EARTH…. I can in actual sad humility admit this in this gobbledeegooky me$$ we all are now in thank$ to ‘the republicans’ -$O GODDAM MI$CALLED! (Goldwater said,
      just before he died that ‘these guys make ME fell like and Old LIBERAL’ -they make
      me feel that way too Ruth! Their bitching and kevetching ever since Roosevelt II about “that damned commerce clause” -as if it was only a phrase like our shallow days phrase this or that!- is actually treasonous -as treasonous as The Party Of
      Treason with its well known sell outs like the Ro$enbergs & ilk….!!
      This is vitally NECESSARY to not only know of, but to KNOW AND UNDER$TAND because it is not just ‘our guns’ that are in peril, it is our entire SOCIETY that is in the stage of The Final Battle of LAW Versus BIG BUCK$ running rough$hod over ALLLLL
      of us -even their own $poilt and perverted BRATS. (Oswald Spengler, THE Prophet, really did hit THAT one right on:- he SAID it would be “around and after 2000″ -back
      in 1928. Note well Ruth, its the BLOATED RICH who want our guns taken away while they FINI$H US OFF and if they use Obama the Left-black-boy to carry THEIR water then $o much the better FOR THEM. Lets keep in view what REALLY ha$ been going on and on every since Archie Bunker and Meathead had that famous conver$ation about Archie’s New Rai$e (that was not a rai$e at all! Just more paper with numbers
      in the corners buying LE$$ than before with fewer pieces of mere paper!)
      WE THE PEOPLE either stand together as AMERICANS UNITED and not a bunch of mostly still retro ‘states’ that can’t even count up to a hundred without a mistake,
      or we WILL h-a-n-g $-e-p-a-r-a-t-e-l-y from the Chinese NOO$E$ that OUR Robber Richboy$ HAVE $-O-L-D US INTO ever since ASSenhower refused to take out China’s nukes when only a dozen or so existed. (He did -much muted and belatedly
      ‘warn’ us about the Military INDUSTRIAL Complex -remember Ruth, remember??
      THAT is what is under and behind ALL that is going on bassackward$ and “not even gnorw (as Peter Woit would put it)! Not even UP to wrong -$O VILE AND VICIOU$ ARE THEY. (Has Warren Buffett ACTUALLY “paid more taxes” $ince HE ADMITTED
      that HE AND ALL THE RE$T $HOULD DO….?? HA$ he??? I $ure have NOT heard a peep -have you?
      Ruth the REAL Constitution is ONLY 52 simple plain English words long. AND SOME DAY…, only ONE word of those 52 will need be Raised to being spelled fully rightly: “WE THE PEOPLE…. Ordain AND Establish THIS Constitution FOR the UNITED States of AMEARTHIA” -ye$ from Pole to POLE with NO exception$ whatever. (Let alone their ‘states’ ‘rights’ so too like those of Old Slavery South in our history that is $TILL their FUTURE before THEY TOO really get WITH THE UNIVERSE ARIGHTLY, YES, AURIGHTLY……
      Thank you again Ruth for bringing to clarity what no one else here has done as succinctly. And if you can, come on UP TO THE COLORS and instead of ‘the Pledge
      of Allegiance’ gotten up by merest come-lately wartime congressmutts $hilling for the MILITARY Indu$trial Complex (ye$ even back then too!) WE THE PEOPLE HAVE OUR INBORN BY NOW 52 WORDS OF DEDICATED ALLEGIANCE TO “THIS Constitution (of only 52 Words) FOR the UNITED states (so called $O futilely today!)
      of AMERICA” After all Ruth, if someday, soon or whatever in due season, that last and 52nd Word WILL BE “AMEARTHIA!” -exclamation mark and all!- then it is rather
      picayunish to jabber at this late date about ‘states’ and ‘rights’ -and $o on down the $orryass’d list of pabulum doled out by The Fortune 500 etc., etc., etc!

      • 7delta says:

        (Gingrich’s South and so called ‘republicans’ down there would $TILL put the
        black man in slavery, jail, or Africa -and clap for anyone doing it! They would $TILL be
        the same goddam redneck riffraffy beer bellied tobacco chawin’ Bilbos and Wallaces in the school house doors!

        Wow. That’s quite an assumption there. I mean no ad hoc attack here, but you seem a tad confused. The past is not pretty-the bad parts never are–but it was resolved and with much bloodshed. Where things went wrong after the Civil War are too many to list here, but your comment about Southerners is based in ignorance and in the same kind of stereotyping your assertions appear to decry. It’s…well, progressive-leftist psy-op material. Shades of Howard Zinn, who btw, was a card carrying member of the CPUSA. Just maybe he has an ulterior motive for his creative history.

        The rest of your post is akin to trying to read Greek backwards. Seriously, I don’t mean to be insulting, but your theory is not rooted in reality and lacks coherence. It veers more toward diatribe than it does toward enlightenment. It’s ideologically-driven subversion by altering historical context while feigning support.

        that will be VERY useful in my book upcoming (“THOSE 52 WORDS!”)

        Planning to self-publish?

        Come on, if you were serious about what you write, you would take the time to present a coherent argument in readable prose. As it is, you are mimicking the disjointed grammar and sentence structure of a group that communicates like dishonest used car salesmen trying to sell confusion. Sprinkling your theory with disjointed half-truths and competing historical concepts to derive a wayward conclusion is not enlightenment. It’s dishonest and whoever taught you this as the ‘real’ truth sold you damaged goods. They’ve given you a smattering of truth infused with misinterpretation and lead you down superfluous pathways away from truthful understanding. Why would someone do that? I can think of several reasons and some of them lead straight back to the very people who truly are subversive and whose goal is your, and this country’s, total destruction. Why help them? Psy-op, my friend. It’s psy-op.

        • Brad says:

          Amen 7delta, I was wondering how long it would take for these folks to infiltrate this blog. Not very subtle are they?

        • Damn! 7Delta. You’re ‘like’,, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage of the blogging world all rolled into one.

          I figure with a name like ” FREDAURICK ALYON ASHAUR” with his weird long winded way of getting across a point might ‘like’,, mean he is the proverbial mad scientist with his hair all sticking straight out, waving his hands with his long skinny fingers spread straight out and his eyes rolling around in their sockets. Wow !

          As I was reading you’re analysis of FREDAURICK’s post I thought back to when I was reading his posts. To me there was something that didn’t quite ring true also. But I rushed on to the finish line without really giving it another thought. Low and behold if you didn’t come up with the answer! I had enough trouble reading him much less trying to systematically decode it.

          So I was totally willing and figured, it would be a smart move just to let you, Oswald, or Brad do all the nitty-gritty, brain cell burning work of making sense out of it. I hope to read more posts from Freddy and even more so, your detailed reports.

          Have you given any thought to his name? FREDAURICK ALYON ASHAUR , LETS RUN IT TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. “FREDAURICKAYLONASHAUR” (do you see anything?)

          No matter, I hope he doesn’t go away. Since reading your post I’m finding this to be a very entertaining experience. Up till now I have been speed reading your posts, believe me when I say ” not any more”. I am going to back track (after Super Bowl) and read your posts more thoroughly .

          Hope you have a fantastic Super Bowl Sunday.
          Ham, Potato Salad, Fried Chicken Wings, BEER, and Football.
          Thank you America.
          Life is good!
          Thom

          • 7delta says:

            Thom said: Damn! 7Delta. You’re ‘like’,, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage of the blogging world all rolled into one.

            LOL. I wouldn’t say that, but I do spend a lot of time observing and researching. I’ve run across the citizen sovereignty people before, which is where I think Fred is coming from. They usually show up to enlighten people.

            From what I’ve seen, most people know on some level something isn’t right about a lot of what we’re seeing and hearing. They’re simply trying to figure out what’s really going on and how we got to this place. While wading through a lot of good and bad info, some get sidetracked by the scam artists who promise ‘truth’ by offering a packaged explanation. I’m willing to give most people the benefit of doubt that they’re not knowingly disseminating lies, but this stuff is junk that’s nothing more than a psy-op started a long time ago to distract people from what their elected public servants are doing and from recovering knowledge about the original intent of the Constitution and that period of our history. Informed, educated people throw a monkey wrench into their decades-old disinformation strategy.

            FREDAURICK ALYON ASHAUR , LETS RUN IT TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. “FREDAURICKAYLONASHAUR” (do you see anything?)

            I noticed he misspelled his own name between his screen name and the name and address he gave Dean in one of his posts. I see ‘Fred’ and ‘Rick(a)y’, but no Lucy or Ethel. LOL. What do you see?

            Hope you have a fantastic Super Bowl Sunday.
            Ham, Potato Salad, Fried Chicken Wings, BEER, and Football.

            Chili, beer, and more sides than I can name, at a get-together with good friends, old and new, and an exciting last half. I didn’t really have a dog in this fight, but it was still fun to root for good plays. Hope your Super Bowl Sunday went the way you wanted and a good time was had by all.

            • Oswald Bastable says:

              Curious 7delta…which dog is yours, when they’re in the fight?

              • 7delta says:

                Panthers. I have ties to the organization. There’s something to be said for loyalty, which is all we’ve had lately to keep us rooting for them. LOL. Through thick and thin. There are other teams I like, as well, but my dog, no matter who they play, is the Big Cat.

                • Hey 7Delta; Waasup? Thanks for your comeback the other day. Last night I googled “FREDUARICK ALYON ASHAUR” and I got a hit. unfortunately I didn’t book mark it. However, it was a Fredrick somebody , living in Santa Maria, CA. but this morning I couldn’t get it again…. :( It had street address and phone number also) If he is a Goldwater fan he must be 70 years old or lives in AZ. Do or have you ever heard of “Hatcher Leon” ?, I believe he’s from GA.

                  • 7delta says:

                    Thom asked: Do or have you ever heard of “Hatcher Leon” ?, I believe he’s from GA.

                    No, I’m not familiar with Mr. Leon.

                  • Fredaurick Alyon Ashaur says:

                    Dear Thom H. Pean Sr:- you are astute enough about recent history -thank you! I AM FredAURick ALYON AshAUR -my birth name fully spelled out. It is NOT ;just a handle’ like all the hiders behind such facades use on the Net today! IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS -but I’ll not go into that here. WHAT IS important Thom is THIS:- the Universe IS sheerly infinite-eternal, NOT ‘created’ or ‘evolved’ -NEITHER ONE! And the TRUE PORTAL into our human-to-be-as-yet W-A-Y into actually “getting WITH it” about THIS fact that Big $cience on YOUR taxe$ is HIDING LIKE CRAZY -and denying even yet!- is “THOSE 52 WORDS” of September 17, 1787, penned so swiftly and sure by patriot GOUVENEUR MORRIS of Pennsylvania….
                    THOSE 52 Words…, really were and AURE the ONLY words in the whole 5000 plus words that follow them in that Founding Document “THIS Constitution FOR the UNITED States of AMERICA”- yes Thom, THEY are the ONLY words absolutely UNCHANGING “no matter WHERE men may go” out into the universe of Light Etaurnal…..
                    THAT, Thom, is WHAT I am all about and I DO live in Santa Maria and I will be 80 this year. You came the nearest of the mere commenters on Dean’s WONDERFUL article on Coming After My Guns -that he posted on January 3, 2013. Take a bow Thom, and I AM here to ENLIGHTEN VERY LITERALLY this rather better than usual group of commenter on Dean’s brave work on The DC Clothesline. HE NEEDS YOUR HELP FOLKS NOT KIBITZINGS SO TOO USUAL. And Thom THAT is WHAT I am here to do on these replies! NONE of you know ANY REAL H-I-S-T-O-R-Y so of COURSE I appear as a Space Man -amongst those turd and bone tossing humonkeys in the move
                    “2001” (Get the November issue of Astronomy magazine and read on page 10 Bob Berman’s WONDERFULLY READABLE article on “its time to tell our kids the universe IS infinite” -and BEGIN, Thom, to actually S-E-E-E-E-E…… I AM FredAURick ALYON AshAUR, secretaury to AURATHAUR STELLAURFLAME, Himself, Amen!

                    • Oswald Bastable says:

                      Sprechen sie Engrish?

                    • 7delta says:

                      secretaury to AURATHAUR STELLAURFLAME, Himself, Amen!

                      King Arthur (Stellar Flame)? Lightworkers? Ascended masters, like St. Germain, Francis Bacon? This is the history you’re speaking about?

                      “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

                      George Washington’s Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796

                    • Brad says:

                      7delta, Wow! Kind of sums it all up doesn’t it? There has to be something higher, a higher authority. This is why in history, leaders declared themselves gods. They knew that nothing unites a people more than language and “most of all” RELIGION. And morality comes from religion! In the end, it will all come down to religion as declared in the Holy Bible. There are only two sides, you are either for God or you are against Him, there is no middle ground.

                    • @Freduarick, What area of India do you call home? Or are you American born Hindu? Do you practice Hinduism, or are you Christian?

                • Oswald Bastable says:

                  LOL…I feel your pain. Cowboys here, life long fan, miss Tex Schramm…and owner who knew his job: “sign the checks and shut the flock up!” Now we’re saddled with Al Davis 2.0, who’ll never sell the team, and once he goes his family will continue to keep us out of the big dance forever and a day.

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            Sorry man…I read the first 3 lines of his first post and tuned right the flock out. I’d love to be bilingual, but gibberish wouldn’t be my choice for a 2nd language. :)

            • Hey Ozzy,
              I should be in thanking 7Delta, but I haven’t had a chance. That goony-loony (Fred) puts me in mind of another person I’m following. Following meaning, I read some of his post some of the time. Its funny that you should mention (bilingual) I’ve been thinking about a word ( Au(?) have you ever heard that word in any language? Or this word or any part of it “Aashaur” ? Maybe you can already tell, but I’m very curious about this guy’s rhetoric ( Freduarick) as I am with the writtings of the other ‘person of interest’ I mentioned earlier. If you think of anything let me know. If you don’t think of anything thats ok too. Tks

      • You lost me after your name. If you have something to say just say it in plain unadulterated ENGLISH.

  13. Bernard Carlson says:

    Our God given rights and U.S. Constitutional rights are being violated constantly by Democrat’s and the Republicans who go along and/or do not act to stop the usurpation. Political correctness, fear of governemt, and timidity, etc. are leading us to failing to combat these ills. We must change.

    • JIm says:

      If you registered to vote, you gave up your God given rights, for rights and privileges bestowed by the “United States” [the Fed. govt.] You have become a citizen[subject] of the “United States” by way of your unlimited power to contract. This is a fact, backed by mountains of court opinions,precendents, etc. Time to turn off the tube and grab a book.

  14. Lunula says:

    What does it mean when it says ‘well regulated’ militia? I’ve been thinking about those two words… In what form does this regulation come?

    • 7delta says:

      1828 Definition
      REG’ULATE, v.t.

      1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.

      2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

      3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

      1913 Definition
      Regulate (regulate)
      v. t. (-lt)
      Reg”u*late
      [imp. *** p. p. Regulated (- l&amacr]`td); p. pr. *** vb. n.Regulating.] [L. regulatus, p. p. of regulare, fr. regula. See Regular.]

      To adjust by rule, method, or established mode] to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws.
      The laws which regulate the successions of the seasons.Macaulay.

      The herdsmen near the frontier adjudicated their own disputes, and regulated their own police.Bancroft.

      To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
      To adjust, or maintain, with respect to a desired rate, degree, or condition; as, to regulate the temperature of a room, the pressure of steam, the speed of a machine, etc.
      To regulate a watch or clock, to adjust its rate of running so that it will keep approximately standard time.

      Syn. — To adjust; dispose; methodize; arrange; direct; order; rule; govern.

      http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,regulate

      • Fredaurick Alyon Ashaur says:

        The Dictionary is right -right enough for gov’mint wuk ya know. But there IS a FAR better definition of “a well REGULATED militia” -its in Section 8 of Article 1. It REALLY $-p-e-l-l-$ o-u-t just EXACTLY what was later condensed and put in that one sentence that is the 2nd Amendment. R-e-a-d it, and $–E–E. Its all been right THERE IN WRITING IN PLAINEST KING JAMES BIBLE ENGLISH ALL THIS TIME SINCE 1787.(Not at all the usual gobbledeegook of our dear lieyer$ for hire$ who talk so that you HAVE to ‘interpret’ what they never really MEAN anyways. We NEED a Congress wherein NO LIEYER$ NEED APPLY. Remember WHAT Shakespeare said:- “FIRST we KILL ALL the lawyers!” And, you just might recall what Jesus said “WOE unto YOU LAWYERS; ye make burdens heavy to be borne but offer not EVEN ONE FINGER to help bear them….!”

        • 7delta says:

          The Dictionary is right -right enough for gov’mint wuk ya know. But there IS a FAR better definition of “a well REGULATED militia” -its in Section 8 of Article 1.

          I’m guessing you mean Art. 1, Sec. 8, (Powers Granted to Congress) paragraphs 15 & 16.

          [15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

          [16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          Why, yes. To regulate–to make regular or uniform; to put or keep in good order; and as Daniel stated: well trained–to train or practice with regularity so as to obtain proficiency and to maintain order for efficiency of operation.

          “FIRST we KILL ALL the lawyers!”

          Shakespeare had a sense of humor, but the reading of his work has become rather dry with literalism throughout the years. Some of the guys who wrote that very document you refer to were lawyers. I’m sure the King would have agreed with you that his world would have been vastly improved by hanging them all.

          Perhaps the lawyers aren’t the problem, but people who happen to be lawyers who have sought, at the behest of, and in conjunction with, his fellow travelers, to subvert the meanings of words for the sake of ideologies foreign to the original intent. And, maybe if We, the People spent the time to know straight from the pens of those who wrote the Constitution the intent of their words, the people who mean to subvert, lawyer or ideologue alike, wouldn’t make much headway.

          A few questions: Where do you think the citizen sovereignty movement originated and for what purpose, since it’s a crooked path of half-truths, slippery definitions and misunderstandings of how the system was intended and actually does work–with its flaws by human nature without malice and by intentional attrition by lawfare? It does, after all, subtly subvert the original intents, the execution of those laws and the philosophical underpinnings of the foundation of the Constitution. Gee, why would anyone who claims to support the Rule of Law want to do that?

          • Sam Maloney says:

            Well Regulated Militia,,,, == Being Proficient in Military Function…. (IE) Going thru military excercises as often as might be necessary to aquire a degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia… As stated in Federalist paper # 29

    • From what I’ve read, there is an older definition of ‘regulated’ that means ‘well-trained’. Most people seem to think that ‘regulated’ means that it has to be managed and directed by some higher authority. To me, that seems to be the exact opposite of what a ‘militia’ is: an informal military force created by ordinary citizens. Once there is a government management of the force, it is no longer a militia, a la the National Guard. The intent of the 2nd amendment is for every citizen to retain the right to keep and bear arms without membership in any military group, to maintain their own armaments and ammunition supplies and also to be trained in the use of their arms, to be called up into the militia if needed to defend the state.

    • Fredaurick Alyon Ashaur says:

      Lunula, that phrase “well regulated militia” refers DIRECTLY back to clauses 15 and 16 in Section 8 of Article ONE. Look it up -and see…. And, Lunula, those two clauses of that ONE long SINGLE SENTENCE -please note THAT fact!- refer DIRECTLY back to “”provide FOR the Common Defense” of “THOSE 52 WORDS” of the SIX Highest DEDICATIONS that has yet been made available amongst our humonkeys, humutts, and a Few of Us…. HuMANs….
      When you and many others really GET IT about even recent AMERICAN history, let alone WORLD history that EVERYbody just IGNORES ON PURPOSES beginning with mere lazyass brainlessness…, THEN I will not be merely ha-ha’d by the likes of some of the repliers to Dean’s really WONDERFUL article of Jan 3 2013 about guns….
      Lunula, TRY to get to the GREAT Picture:- the INFINITE universe and the most Recent and VERY BEST EVER…. Portal INTO Absolute INFINITYETERNITY AS SUCH that THOSE 52 WORDS -yes, WAURDS!- really REALLY A-U-R -for Those still SO Few of Us…, Who c-a-n SEEEeee……! Thank you, I AM FredAURick ALYON AshAUR….!

  15. Pingback: I just saw that Dow Jones is worth 14K - Gun & Game - Gun Forum Community

  16. Thank You very much Dean for a very well written and concise article.
    Can you contact me at my email address? I would like to discuss using this article as a speech at an upcoming 2A rally but I think there are a couple of things I need to change to use it at the rally!!!
    Thank You again and God Bless You!!!!
    Mark
    US Army Infantry
    1981-1996

  17. Oswald Bastable says:

    It would appear the gun confiscations have begun. Without charges a man in New Mexico has had his entire lifetime’s collection of firearms confiscated.

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/department-of-homeland-security-raids-gun-collector-who-didnt-violate-the-law_022013

    But hey…let’s listen to the lefties (who by now would have been screaming bloody murder if a Republican were in office) who cry that “No one is going to confiscate guns”.

    • Can’t always believe the news but they suspect him of gun running.(cutting into the governments gig) He had 1500 guns. A lot of them had no way to be traced. ?????

      • Oswald Bastable says:

        I’m sure there will be plausible explanations (per the gov’t.) for each and every “arsenal’ to be confiscated. I own more than 1500 books…far more than any reasonable being could read at any one time…surely, as a collector, I plan to use them in violation of the 1st.

        If “shall not be infringed” means what it says, then owning that many guns means nothing, other than he was a true collector.

        The stories also state he was being watched for years…yet no charges have been filed?

        I’m sorry…this stinks to high heaven. Particularly after F&F.

      • Oswald Bastable says:

        Additional info suggests he was a C&R collector, and many of his guns were quite old and valuable.

        • Oswald Bastable says:

          As in, assault flintlocks.

        • i guess they may not give them back? I know the guns they confisicated during Katrena wasn’t returned. The owners had to sue. That’s just what I heard. Its gottin to a point I check whose at the door before I open it. “Bad” If I ever see the “Swap” I’m going to have my wife grab the movie camera just in case they kick the door down. For sure I am not going to open the door if I see cop cars.

        • Oswald Bastable says:

          Correction…not flintlocks, but lots of very rare and one of a kind C&R pistols/rifles from early to mid 1900s. Obviously a serious criminal in need of having his priceless collection confiscated by a cash strapped feral gooberment.

        • Oswald Bastable says:

          Meant to include this…a link to his website:

          http://www.adamsguns.com/

  18. Fredaurick Alyon Ashaur says:

    Dean I really APPRECIATE this blog about gun rights! So much so that I will right here and right now give you -hoping you can U$E it like you sure seem ready here in you Jan. 3 ’13 article.
    To wit: Dean the REAL Constitution is ONLY 52 WORDS! They are the DEDICATION TO not some mere ‘pre”amble’ (pre is too early and amble is a lazy way of walking!). Those 52 Words of the very HIGHE$T PO$$IBLE D-E-D-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-$ open to us humans “in order to form a more perfect UNION,” here on this real earth in real time!! They are the ONLY words that cannot
    E-V-E-R be changed, altered, ignored, evaded, forgotten, lied about, denied, or even diluted in A-N-Y way whatsoE-V-E-R -period.
    Almost every other word following them in the constitution can be -and many have been- all kinds of changed or deleted (like slavery provisions have been and rightly so). But THOSE 52 WORDS are the most spermatically COMPACTED TREASURY OF ALL AGES and ALL the very
    Highest and MOST LIVEABLE IN THE REAL WORLD that are to be found in any and ALL of our
    Religions, East or West….! No other so brief yet SO C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E set of Words in all our many Religions and Bibles around the earth has EVER been heard or Writ amongst us humans!
    THIS fact -of History -of Morality as such- is the TRUE INMOST C-O-R-E of AMERICAN Exceptionalism PROUDLY PROCLAIMABLE DAY IN AND DAY OUT!!!
    Now Dean, watch this closely because YOU can U$E it and you have MY FULL PERMISSION given by these words right now and right here -okay? OKAY!
    Here it is: “….provide for the common defense, and SECURE the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY….” -FOR ENDLESS E-V–E—R!!!!
    Now Dean, watch this:- Article 1, Section 8, has SEVENTEEN ITEMISINGS in its one SINGLE LONG (BIBLICAL STYLED) sentence. (Check it out- that sentence has SEVENTEEN specific and general “Congress shall have POWER to” D-O and “to make ALL laws NECESSARY AND PROPER” thereunto! Quite a sweeping “carte blanche” it was -YES IT WAS. In fact Section 8 was clearly worried about by early Americans during the months of debated around the land about confirming “THIS Constitution FOR the UNITED states of America” (those last 8 words of Those 52 Words of Highest Allegiances/Dedications Six!) Section 8 is SO DEEP CUTTING AND SO ALL-ENCOMPASSING in their allotment of P-O-W-E-R to Congress that IT WAS CONSCIOUSLY W-H-Y those first 10 Amendments were rather nervously and even worriedly added by men who had not wanted to add them. (George Washington was one such and Hamiltion was another -and later Jefferson wished for even more -yes Dean, AGAINST “THIS JUDICIAL TYRANNY” OF ONLY NINE “CALLED THE SUPREME COURT”!)
    Dean, those 52 Words AND A-L-L of Section 8 (Article 1) are hand in glove both historically AND mathematically EXACTINGLY ideologically speaking. They stand or fall ALL TOGETHER!
    Now, I should have put some …. between “provide for the common DEFENSE”…. “and SECURE the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY”(FOREVER!) earlier. Okay we now have before us FIVE words and ELEVEN words of FIFTY TWO words that DIRECTLY bear on and BEAR O-U-T what YOU, Dean, have so BRAVELY S-A-I-D in your Jan. 3 ’13 article.
    TAKE A B-I-G BOW DEAN -YOU’VE E-A-R-N-E-D IT DETAIL!!
    Now as you can easily confirm, Article One, Section 8 right off the bat SAYS -amongst other things- “AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE of the United States” (this time it comes right OUT about BOTH “common” defense and “general’
    welfare”!)
    Thus it is that SECTION 8 AUGMENTS Those Fifty Two WORDS of Highest Pledged ALLEGIANCE “for the United States of America” -right out of the chute! (Note THIS well!)
    As you can check, BOTH the 15th AND 16th Providing Clauses of THAT ONE LONG SENTENCE (so like the Apostle Paul’s sentences!). are “all about” “THE MILITIA” -its really
    thrilling Dean to truly R-E-A-L-I-$-E that Section 8 has THREE carrying out DETAILINGS
    of the eleven Words found in Those 52 Words of absolutestly UNALTERABLE FOREVER
    Dedications-Allegiances TO “THIS Constitution FOR the UNITED States of America”!!!
    And when in the First Ten Amendments ALL THESE PRECEDING DEDICATIONS AND “PROVIDING FOR” “the common defense AND the general welfare” we Providentially got
    as a FINISHING S-E-A-L The 2nd Amendment -NO LESS. For if we were to “translate” it
    today for our mostly not too well read “scholars” even -let alone the beer bellied mob!- we would in intellectual HONE$TY H-A-V-E to say instead of “shall NOT be infringed” “shall not EVEN be infringed” LET ALONE TOUCHED OR EVEN DISPUTED ABOUT IN A-N-Y WAY EVEN BY “CONGRESS ASSEMBLED”!!!!
    That’s right Dean, even if ALL Americans today -or tomorrow!- were to try to fiddle with or even DISCUSS A-N-Y ‘law’ about “the right to KEEP A-N-D B–E–A–R ARMS” -yes ARMS of a-n-y AND E-V-E-R-Y KIND THERE IS!!- THEY A-L-L-L-L ARE JUST FLAT OUT DEAD WRONG -YE$, JUST GODDAM’D UN-CONSTITUTIONAL -ALREADY! -ALREADY!!
    I just wanted YOU, Dean, to K-N-O-W in the Great Inner Workings CONSTITUTION’ly just how “more RIGHT than you knew you were” your brave post of January 3, 2013 REALLY IS!
    I hope you can trace the INMOST INHERENT -yes HEURISTIC- inescapable and consciously INTENTIONAL MEANINGS of the Words I have just cited then construed SO FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER TRULY C-O-R-R-E-C-T-L-Y (yes, CAUR-rectly…!)
    I just today found you and your article; I’ll be following along now -take a Bow Dean and I do hope YOU can see clearly enough to FREELY U$E what you have just read right here. Thank you for a good long read, Dean, and maybe we can get together, yes togethAUR…, soon or
    in due time….. Good Light, Frederick A. Ashaur 355 W. Clark, Space 38, Santa Maria CA.
    Zip Code 93455 (951) 764-9110 ANYtime for YOU, Dean! (I simply can’t USE email yet…)

  19. Pingback: Deserves Reading AGAIN - Gun & Game - Gun Forum Community

  20. Pingback: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? – the original author is Dean Garrison | managementdocandpoet

  21. Thank you for this. I would prefer peace, but that doesn’t seem to be the order of the day.

  22. Inewby says:

    Almost gotit right”A Constitutional Republic of Written Law” the Founders qualified every word in the Constitution. Most were well educated, about 40% had degrees from,heres another politically incorrect fact, Christian Seminaries. They all were well read in world history. They observed that all past Republics
    Eventually devolved to Democracies then totally collapsed. All of this is in writing if u care to find it. The inalienablerights of the people is the Bill of Rights. The contract between the People & the Government is the Constitution. Since every word within the”Contract” was qualified in writing at the time, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION!!!!!!!! Which is exactly what the Founding Fathers Intended!!!!
    Indeed there were several instances during the remainder of their lives where they defended these meanings without change!!!!
    The supreme court when it was supreme used to only occasionally be called upon to reiterate after there were no living Founding Fathers . but all the original & subsequent writings still exist. As do those few rulings.
    One final point- the word “infringed” , within the context of the US CONSTITUTION, has been defined as “to tax, restrict or in any way impede”.
    Since all of this still exists there is obviously no misunderstanding. These intentional violations of the “contract” present a clear & present danger to These United States of America. Anyone guilty of in anyway contributing is in direct violation the Oath & r automatically terminated & the highest elected law official of the land,county sherifs, r negligent if they did not immediately issue warrants of arrest on all of them. Every Time! Freezing & seizing all their assets paperwork computers etc & hold them w/out bail awaiting sentencing by a tribunal of “ordinary citizens” selected by lottery. It would of course take action against any culpable parties as they would not be acting in good faith & in these cases are at least aiding and abbetting.
    The best way is not rewording-simply quote lines from the Federalist/anti federalist papers

  23. Juli Adcock says:

    Plain truth, sad, scary and I’m glad you wrote it. I also wanted you to know that it’s making the rounds through all kinds of places, including email. Doing my part to preach, teach and prepare, especially the ones politicians view as cannon fodder to be sent to do the dirty work.

  24. Crusak says:

    Well said. I have grown to love my country and its foundational documents more with each passing year. As a responsible gun owner for over 40 years I fully support the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of our Constitution. We most certainly have the right to keep and bear arms, and many U.S. citizens are fortunate to live in counties where the local sheriff has publicly stated that they will not enforce any illegal Federal laws regarding firearms, ammunition or magazines (I live in such a county, in Oregon).

    Thank you for gathering such a valuable set of information and for your courage to post it on your blog.

    Molon Labe!

  25. cody says:

    Very good article, i stand with you 100% check out my page on Facebook its called i will bear arms until the day i die.

  26. Ben says:

    Everyone knows exactly what is going on when they see a hero in a movie put down his weapon because he is ordered to do so by an evil villain. All hearts sink at this tragic moment because everyone knows that the evil villain will not spare the hero’s life but will only use the opportunity of a disarmed hero to take power and wreak more evil than he could have otherwise, before trying to take the hero’s life, and the lives of those he could have protected.

    Time and again murderers and rapists use threats of violence to make their victims disarm and subject themselves to the evil that is about to be perpetrated on them. The victim subjects themselves, thinking to avoid death, but they are murdered anyway.

    The lesson is clear, and we all know it. NEVER disarm and leave yourself defenseless, even at the threat of death, because you would be allowing your own death anyway. WHY, WHY, WHY do so many people cease to understand this simple principle as soon as they are faced with it?

  27. Oswald Bastable says:

    Excellent article with source citations, from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership:

    Ten Myths

    http://www.drgo.us/?page_id=20

    7delta, number 10 goes to the heart of your previous argument regarding the inability to compare gun/crime rates across countries, in a very elegant way:

    “Myth 10: Strict gun control laws have been successful in lowering crime in the UK and Canada.

    Comparing the U.S. to the low guns/low crime societies of the UK or Canada is one of the most common arguments among gun control advocates. In rebuttal, gun control opponents typically reference high guns/low crime nations such as Switzerland and Israel. However, these comparisons miss the mark. The futility of pairwise comparisons between nations’ crime rates relative to their gun ownership becomes apparent once one realizes that there are countries with every permutation: the US (high guns/high crime); Switzerland and Israel (high guns/low crime); Japan (low guns/low crime); and Mexico (low guns/high crime). Any two countries can be compared or contrasted to make any point desired.

    A simple thought experiment will illustrate this point: Three countries, X, Y and Z have very strict anti-gun laws. Should we assume their homicide rates to be very low? In fact, X, Y and Z have homicide rates 100-150% greater than the U.S. (compare the U.S. homicide rate at 9.5 people killed/100,000 to X’s 19.7/100,000 in 1993). Should we suppose that X, Y and Z have one common feature that is responsible for their homicide rates? Since X, Y and Z are low guns/high crime societies, should we assume that guns are not causing the homicides? If so, why not?

    X, Y and Z are actually Russia, Taiwan and South Africa, respectively. But which one characteristic, which is the same in Russia, Taiwan and South Africa throughout the past and present, is responsible for their homicide rates? Attempting to distill the cause of homicide down to one factor such as guns, in each of these very diverse countries, is difficult if not impossible.

    Gun control advocates claim that the crime rate is low in the UK because the British have fewer guns than Americans. But European countries have always had lower violent crime rates than the US, even before strict gun control laws were passed. Moreover, many violent crime rates in Europe and elsewhere are increasing faster than in the U.S. right now.

    Furthermore, the logic of the low guns/low crime rate fails when one considers that the UK’s homicide rate is lower for non-gun homicides as well. Clearly, fewer homicides committed with knives, sticks, etc. cannot be attributable to gun control.

    Very little can be concluded from international studies focused on the guns/crime relationship. Not surprisingly, most of the research is technically weak. The best available homicide and suicide data collected from 36 countries by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when analyzed by Gary Kleck, demonstrates that there is no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide.

    To summarize, there is no consistent global correlation between gun availability and violent crime rates.

    1. Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997).”

    2. Kates Jr., Don B., and Gary Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence, (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997).

    • 7delta says:

      Thanks, Oswald. The whole article was interesting and informative. I bookmarked the site to read more of the articles later.

      • Oswald Bastable says:

        I believe Gary Kleck is the other anti I referenced before, who in his research ended up finding results that basically mirrored those of John Lott, and unlike most antis was able to overcome his inherent predisposition to deny all truths about guns (something Mark is unable to do…regardless of research or methodology).

        Interesting info about Mr. Kleck here: http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

        …particularly this quote from another serious anti:

        “Marvin Wolfgang, who was one of the most prominent criminologists, commented on Kleck’s research concerning defensive gun use (see How often are guns used in self-defense?): [interjection by Oz…there is a link to “How often are guns used in self-defense here, found at the link cited above…end interjection by Oz]
        I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns–ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. …

        What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator… I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. …

        Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. …

        Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. …

        The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
        — Marvin E. Wofgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

        • Brad says:

          This is a man that looks at “facts”, and makes an unbiased judgement. Then, in spite of his own personal feelings and views, although making them known, is willing to reassess and admit the validity of an opposing view and leave open the possibility that he “could” be wrong.

          Obviously not a “true” LIBERAL, but definitely a criminologist worthy of the name scientist.

    • Brad says:

      Excellent article and point Oswald!!! Where are Mark and Steve now?

      • Mark says:

        Directly from the pamphlet:
        “DRGO is a nationwide network of 1,400 medical doctors, other health care professionals, scientists, and others who support the safe and lawful use of firearms for any legitimate purpose.”

        So 1,400 medical professional (but actually not all of those 1,400 are doctors or health workers as it includes “others” probably his mates at the gun club) believe that rubbish.

        There are around 6,000,000 healthcare professionals in the US.

        Another laughable source!

        You are like children.

        • Brad says:

          There you go Mark, I thought we lost you for a while there. Nice to see you are still paying attention. If you read the article that I was talking about, it was basically saying that you can make a point for any side of the argument you want. Side by side comparison of any two countries statistics is misleading at best. Here is the conclusion of that article again.

          “Very little can be concluded from international studies focused on the guns/crime relationship. Not surprisingly, most of the research is technically weak. The best available homicide and suicide data collected from 36 countries by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when analyzed by Gary Kleck, demonstrates that there is no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide.”

          “To summarize, there is no consistent global correlation between gun availability and violent crime rates.”

          I can make my points, and you can make yours, but you cannot really compare because there are too many mitigating factors involved.

          Your country bans guns, ours does not. If you like your countries laws, great, keep living there. If you do not like ours, stay out. DO NOT try to change our laws or take away our rights! Americans will not stand for it. And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take Piers Morgan back!!!

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            You had to look in the mirror and say “Candyman” three times, didn’t you?
            :D

            • Brad says:

              lol, Oswald… I knew he had to be lurking in the shadows somewhere. Just wanted to rattle his cage a little. And it worked! Besides, you and 7delta weren’t being challenged enough. I love the education the two of you are dishing out. Keep up the good work, I love it.

              Your Brother at Arms, always… Malon Labe!

          • @MARK
            DITTO , Take ur raggy ass and go somewhere else. Troll!

            • Brad says:

              Get him Thom, it ain’t over till the fat lady sings. He was just lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce, now he’s exposed.

        • Oswald Bastable says:

          Typical leftist imbecile. Don’t like the message so you attempt to dismiss it by contemptuous association, completely ignoring all citations to the reputable studies referenced. Even if only one person in the entire world was telling the truth, it would still be the truth.

          But you know what Mark? It doesn’t matter what you think. The 2nd Amendment is guaranteed, not by you, not by government (yours or ours) but by our creator. You don’t have one because you have no rights except those granted you as serfs of your feudal overlords. Aren’t you a special breed of slave…

        • 7delta says:

          Hi Mark,

          How are you?

          I wouldn’t call the doctor source laughable. From what I read, the author of the article was simply stating his evaluation of studies–which appear legitimately done by credentialed criminologists–organized into 10 Myths. You may not agree with his sources, which is fine, but he didn’t pull his argument out of thin air. Even doctors get to have opinions and choose causes they wish to support. I know some doctors I wouldn’t trust with my dog, but I know even more who are thoughtful, intelligent, logical problem solvers. I don’t know the doctor who wrote the article, but like people I don’t agree with, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he derived his conclusions in good faith. I’ll read the studies in their entirety as soon as I can. Have you read the studies yet? If so, what flaws in the methodology did you find that make you suspect of their findings?

          • Brad says:

            7delta, as I recall, Marks posts have been a rehashing of Liberal talking points, quick google searches for headlines supporting his view and no in depth research to verify either methodology or supporting documentation. Just lies thrown about and he leaves it up to folks like you to refute it and then calls you a liar.

            It is the lazy persons tactic. Just toss out accusations, and call you a liar, then tell more lies casting aspersions upon your sources that are impossible to completely debunk because you cannot really defend against a negative, or just out and out lies. Just like the old stand by, “Are you still beating your wife?” People, especially liberals, will always in the back of their minds believe there was some validity to a completely baseless accusation. And unfortunately people love to hear about the bad and not the good.

            I apologize for the crassness of this next statement, but it really does bring to home what people remember. Vince Boudreau once said: “If a man builds a thousand bridges and sucks one dick, they don’t call him a bridge-builder… they call him a cocksucker.”

            Unfortunately, sometimes all it takes is the accusation.

            • Brad says:

              Vince Boudreau is a character in a movie played by Woody Harrelson.

            • No need to apologize for laying your cards on the table and asking someone to call you!!
              I like plain easy to understand, straight forward English. I would say the same thing if you hadn’t already said it. Panetta is a liar and in on the cover up to protect obama and clinton. I have a lot more to say about that but will save it for another time. After watching Panetta I am sick to my stomach. Our whole government is full of fuckin sandbaggin assholes.

              • Brad says:

                Amen Thom, it makes the stomach churn doesn’t it. What is even more disturbing is how gullible and stupid the American public is. All it takes is a little intelligence and due diligence performing some research and you will know that they are liars. They contradict themselves all the time and yet the public laps up their lies with revelry. People are inherently lazy, weak minded and stupid. They would rather be told what to think rather than put forth the effort to determine it for themselves.

                “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Too bad the percentage of those that cannot be fooled all of the time is so infinitesimally small.

  28. Abe says:

    Pretty cool post man. And I agree with basic right to defend yourself. And I’m glad you didn’t forget to mention Native Americans. Because I do not agree with what was done to us. And I say us because I am part Cherokee and many other blood lines. And I am very proud of all of them. It seems people are always griping about freedom in this country and everyone always forgets that this land according to what history I’ve learned, was forcefully taken from the Native Americans. So how can it be the land of the free and the home of the brave when the people who’s rightful home this is did not consent to a new government here? I have mixed feelings about all this. I do think that everyone should just try to make the best of it now, and I agee with a persons right to defend themselves.

    • I too could say I am part navajo because in my families distant past my great great however many back grandmother was Navajo, But if you really look at history you would see that even before the Europeans came to this country The Native Americans fought amongst themselves for control of the Best Hunting grounds and most fertal lands one tribe forcing the other off of there land, It goes back to the old servival of the fittiest wich is a law of nature so where is the difference in the two?

  29. stacey miller says:

    I’ve been sayin this from the start!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

  30. @AURATHAUR STELLAURFLAME
    ((aurat , “Woman”

    (The Blow struck by Moses).
    From: kulliyaat-e iqbaal urduu (Lahore: Shaikh Ghulam

    These are not exactly great poems; they’re here not for their literary interest but for their content. After all, it’s striking that Iqbal, who throughout his intellectual life had almost nothing to say to women (or to non-Muslims), in his last volume actually created this specially titled little group of ghazals. It’s easy to feel how troubled he was by the aspirations of westernized and educated women, and how he struggled to find a proper place for women in his view of society. Considering how boldly Iqbal urged (male) Muslims to reimagine and remake the world, it’s surprising that he was so sexually conservative (and apparently encountered such problems in his personal life too). These ghazals show that even near the end of his life he was unable to get beyond a vision of women as helplessly destined to be primarily child-bearers (with a secondary role as muses and sex objects).
    “from her flame burst out the spark of life.

    ((aurat , “Woman) (The Blow struck by Moses) (1936).
    From: kulliyaat-e iqbaal urduu (Lahore: Shaikh Ghulam ‘Ali
    These are not exactly great poems; they’re here not for their literary interest but for their content. After all, it’s striking that Iqbal, who throughout his intellectual life had almost nothing to say to women (or to non-Muslims), in his last volume actually created this specially titled little group of ghazals. It’s easy to feel how troubled he was by the aspirations of westernized and educated women, and how he struggled to find a proper place for women in his view of society. Considering how boldly Iqbal urged (male) Muslims to reimagine and remake the world, it’s surprising that he was so sexually conservative (and apparently encountered such problems in his personal life too). These ghazals show that even near the end of his life he was unable to get beyond a vision of women as helplessly destined to be primarily child-bearers (with a secondary role as muses and sex objects).

    Urdu spellings reflect adjustments made for the sake of the meter.
    See the ‘script bar’ at the bottom of the page for viewing choices.

    I. European Man
    mard-e firang
    1) a thousand times the wise men have explained this,
    but this problem of woman has remained exactly where it was before ,
    hazaar baar ;hakiimo;N ne is ko samjhaayaa
    magar yih mas))alah-e zan rahaa vahii;N kaa vahii;N

    2) there’s no fault of woman in this ruination
    the moon and the Pleiades bear witness to her dignity
    qa.suur zan kaa nahii;N hai kuchh is ;xaraabii me;N
    gavaah us kii sharaafat pah hai;N mah-o-parvii;N

    3) the turmoil is manifest in European society–
    that man is simple, the poor thing; he doesn’t understand woman
    asaad kaa hai firangii mu((aasharat me;N :zuhuur
    kih mard saadah hai bechaarah zan-shinaas nahii;N

    II. One Question
    = – = = / – = – = / = =
    ….
    ek savaal
    1) let someone ask the wise man of Europe,
    whose neck-rings [of slavery] are on India and Greece,
    ko))ii puuchhe ;hakiim-e yuurap se
    hind-o-yuunaa;N me;N jis ke ;halqah bah gosh!

    2) is this the excellence of a society–
    man unemployed/useless, and woman without an embrace?
    kyaa yihii hai mu((aasharat kaa kamaal
    mard be-kaar aur zan tihii aa;Gosh?

    III. Pardah
    – = = / – = = / – = =/ – = =
    ….
    pardah
    1) the lofty sphere has greatly changed its color/style
    oh Lord, this world is still where it was
    bahut rang badle sipihr-e birii;N ne
    ;xudaa yaa yih dunyaa jahaa;N thii vahii;N hai

    2) I haven’t seen any difference in woman and man,
    that one sits in solitude, this one sits in solitude!
    tafaavut nah dekhaa zan-o-shau me;N mai;N ne
    vuh ;xalvat-nashii;N hai! yih ;xiavat-nashii;N hai!
    ….
    3) as yet the offspring of Adam are in pardah, no one’s real self is manifest/known!
    abhii tak hai parde me;N aulaad-e aadam
    kisii kii ;xvudii aashkaaraa nahii;N hai!
    ….
    IV. Solitude
    = = – / – = = – / – = = – / – = =
    ….
    ;xalvat
    1) the lust for solitude has disgraced this age,
    the gaze is bright, the mirror of the heart is dirty
    rusvaa kiyaa is daur ko ;xalvat kii havas ne
    raushan hai nigah aa))inah-e dil hai mukaddar

    2) when the relish of sight grows beyone one’s limits,
    thoughts become scattered and spoiled
    ba;Rh jaataa hai jab ;zauq-e na:zar apnii ;hado;N se
    ho jaate hai;N afkaar paraagandah-o-abtar

    3) the one in whose fate there is no embrace of a pearl-oyster,
    that drop of forgetfulness never becomes a pearl
    aa;Gosh-e .sadaf jis ke na.siibo;N me;N nahii;N hai
    vuh qa:trah-e nisyaa;N kabhii bantaa nahii;N gauhar

    4) in solitude the self grasps itself, but
    now there’s no solitude available in temple or mosque!
    ;xalvat me;N ;xvudii hotii hai ;xvud-giir valekin
    ;xalvat nahii;N ab der-o-;haram me;N bhii muyassar!

    V. Woman
    – = – = / – – = = / – = – = / = =
    ((aurat
    1) through the existence of woman there is color in the picture of creation,
    from her instrument is the inner burning of life
    vujuud-e zan se hai ta.sviir-e kaa))inaat me;N rang
    usii ke saaz se hai zindagii kaa soz-e daruu;N

    2) in dignity her handful of dust is higher than the Pleiades,
    for every dignity is the hidden pearl of that casket
    sharaf me;N ba;Rh ke ;surayyaa se musht-e ;xaak us kii
    kih har sharaf hai usii durj kaa dur-e maskuu;N

    3) she was not able to write the dialogues of Plato, but
    from her flame burst out the spark of Plato!
    makaalamaat-e falaa:tuu;N nah likh sakii lekin
    usii ke shu((le se ;Tuu;Taa sharaar-e aflaa:tuu;N!

    VI. The Freedom of Women
    = = – / – = = – / – = = – / – = =
    aazaadii-e nisvaa;N

    1) I cannot make any decision in this argument,
    although I understand very well that this [side] is poison; that [side], sugar
    is ba;h;s kaa kuchh fai.slah mai;N kar nahii;N saktaa
    go ;xuub samajhtaa huu;N kih yih zahr hai, vuh qand

    2) what’s the benefit of saying something, and becoming even more vilified?
    already they are angry with me, the offspring of [modern] civilization
    kyaa faa))idah kuchh kah’h ke banuu;N aur bhii ma((tuub
    pahle hii ;xafaa mujh se hai;N tah;ziib ke farzand

    3) this secret, only the insight of a woman would reveal–
    they are helpless, they are [to be] excused, the men of wisdom
    is raaz ko ((aurat kii ba.siirat hii kare faash
    majbuur hai;N ma((;zuur hai;N mardaan-e ;xiradmand

    4) which thing is greater in adornment and value,
    the freedom of women, or an emerald necklace?
    kyaa chiiz hai aaraa))ish-o-qiimat me;N ziyaadah
    aazaadii-e nisvaa;N kih zumurrud kaa guluu-band?

    VII. The Protection of Woman
    = = – / – = = – / – = = – / – = =
    ((aurat kii ;hifaa:zat
    1) a living truth/reality is hidden in my breast,
    how would he understand, in whose veins the blood is cold?
    ek zindah ;haqiiqat mire siine me;N hai mastuur
    kya samjhegaa vuh jis kii rago;N me;N hai lahuu sard

    2) neither pardah nor education, whether it be new or old–
    the guardian of the femininity of woman is only man
    ne pardah nah ta((liim na))ii ho kih puraanii
    nisvaaniyat-e zan kaa nigah-baa;N hai faqa:t mard

    3) the community that didn’t realize this living truth/reality–
    that community’s sun very quickly became yellow [and faded]
    jis qaum ne is zindah ;haqiiqat ko nah paayaa
    us qaum kaa ;xvurshiid bahut jald hu))aa zard

    VIII. Woman and Education
    = = – / – = = – / – = = – / – = =
    ((aurat aur ta((liim
    1) if from European civilization is the death of motherhood,
    for the presence/dignity of man, the fruit of this is death!
    tah;ziib-e firangii se agar marg-e umuumat
    hai ;ha.zrat-e insaa;N ke liye is kaa ;samar maut!

    2) the knowledge through the effect of which woman becomes non-woman–
    this knowledge, the possessors of insight call death!
    jis ((ilm kii taa;siir se zan hotii hai naa-zan
    kahte hai;N isii ((ilm ko arbaab-e na:zar maut!

    3) if the madrasah of woman would remain a strainger to faith,
    then for passion and love, knowledge and skill are death!
    begaanah rahe dii;N se agar madrasah-e zan
    hai ((ishq-o-mu;habbat ke liye ((ilm-o-hunar maut!

    IX. Woman
    = – = = / – – = = / – – = = / – – =
    ((aurat

    1) the essence/quality of man is plain, without indebtedness to another,
    the manifestness of the essence/quality of woman is in the hands of another!
    jauhar-e mard ((ayaa;N hotaa hai be-minnat-e ;Gair
    ((Gair ke haath me;N hai jauhar-e ((aurat kii namuud!

    2) of her sorrow and grief, this is the point of ardor–
    her existence is inflamed with the relish of creating!
    raaz hai us ke tap-e ;Gam kaa yihii nuktah-e shauq
    aatishii;N la;z;zat-ta;xliiq se hai us ka vujuud!

    3) they open out through this fire, the mysteries of life,
    it is warm from this fire, the arena of existence and nonexistence!
    khulte jaate hai;N isii aag se asraar-e ;hayaat
    garm isii aag se hai ma((aarikah-e buud-o-naa-buud!

    4) I too am very sorrowful at the oppression of women,
    but it’s not possible, the opening of this difficult knot!
    mai;N bhii ma:zluumii-e nisvaa;N se huu;N ;Gam-naak bahut
    nahii;N mumkin magar is ((aqdah-e mushkil kii kushuud!

    AURAT AUR STELLAR FLAME
    mard be-kaar aur zan tihii aa;Gosh?
    Urdu spellings

  31. 7delta says:

    Wow, Thom. That made my head hurt. LOL. Let’s not try that philosophy on American women. Without a doubt, that would cause a Red Stiletto Rebellion. They would be armed with a plethora of WMDs, the least of which would be traditional firearms. And, I’d be riding shotgun with them.

  32. Pingback: If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight? - Page 2

  33. Colby says:

    I will stand with you. I GOT UR BACK

  34. Pingback: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? | The Electric Hornet

  35. Oswald Bastable says:

    DRGO confirms my previous assessment of liberal hoplophobes…their fear is of themselves and their inability to control their emotions through ratiocination, and they project that fear upon everyone else. Mark is a perfect example of this phobia and irrationality.

    http://www.drgo.us/?p=305

    [Quote:] We Are All Murderers

    The thought processes of gun control advocates are fascinating, to say the least. One recurring theme is the notion that anyone, anywhere can turn from a sane, law-abiding citizen into a murderous maniac. Nobody can be trusted not to shoot his neighbor, the thinking goes, so all of us are in need of regulation by the government.

    This Huffington Post article discusses mental illness and gun control. It quotes long-time professional anti-gun advocacy researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute as saying,

    “The vast majority of firearms violence is not committed by people who are crazy. It is committed by people like us.”

    A long trail of scientific research, of course, tells us that murderers are not at all like normal people. To quote the criminologist Don Kates,

    “Local and national studies dating back to the 1890s show that in almost every case murderers are aberrants exhibiting life histories of violence and crime, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. …roughly 90 percent of adult murderers had adult records, with an average adult criminal career of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”—Kleck G and Kates DB, “Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control,” Prometheus Books, Amherst NY 2001, page 20.

    A skeptic might write Wintemute’s nutty statement off as just another cynical deception by the gun control lobby. But I’ve heard the same sentiment from many gun control advocates. Apparently they really believe it. They are employing the classic psychological defense mechanism of projection, or attributing their own fears to other people. In this case, the fear is the gun controllers’ fear of their own aggressive impulses. They are actually afraid that if they had guns they would, in a fit of rage, use them against the people around them. This alarming tendency among gun control advocates is just more evidence that too many of them are driven by emotion and are immune to reason. [End Quote.]

    • Dan says:

      Very interesting. Makes since.
      To dig even deeper, we know that when it comes down to life and death it is only natural instinct to do what it takes to survive. so in an appocolyptic case for example, everyone is on the verge of starving to death within 24 hours. (just for say). the gun owners will obviously not go hungry even if they have to eat the ones they are defending themselves against.
      so lets say everyone owned a gun and was going to starve to death within 24 hours. I would think that roughly half would survive and again would eat their attackers if it came down to it.
      what if no one owned a gun but the government themselves? obviously they would survive and i doubt they would take care of us like so many expect today. and if it came down to it, they would eat us.
      one more, what if only the government had guns and enough food to supply themselves and us in an appocolyptic scenario until we pulled back into a normal state.
      imagine these being our options. I would not pick the last because I would rather live free or die. What would the rest of the world pick? then take your answer and think about the way this counrty is heading.
      just somthing i thought of while i was reading your comment.

  36. Lt. GENERAL ? And your gonna and try to make me believe he can’t tell his story to someone that counts??? Is he on the payroll? Or is he a fucKin coward? If he is afraid why did he give his name? If this is a bullshit story the people that wrote it should be beat half to death. What the hell is this world coming to?

    Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin–formerly commander of U.S. Special Forces Command and deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence—told CNSNews.com that, if it had been asked, the Defense Department could have sent a plane to Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, to transport a rescue team of U.S. security personnel that instead ended up taking a chartered private plane from Tripoli to Benghazi that night.

    “There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy,” Gen. Boykin told CNSNews.com.

    “State should have coordinated with DOD and said: We’ve got to have an airplane,” said Gen. Boykin. “The Department of Defense could have provided an airplane in there. All they had to do was ask.”

  37. Bloody Belle says:

    Thank you for stating this. It’s a no-brainer but I fear Americans don’t use that mass in their skulls anymore–but that’s another story.
    BTW, I’ve never owned a gun but would if I could get out of NYC.

  38. Dan says:

    “Live free or die” That, I believe is the “idea of America”
    Mr. Garrison, I often discuss the facts presented here. The second amendement is the law, as well as the rest of the constitution. The only argument I constantly get out of what you said is “I just dont see any reason for anyone to own a 30 round magazine” And “When the second amendment was written the only firearms were muskets”
    It is no secret that few modern Americans were taught the meaning of the amendments in the constitution and are not being taught today in our schools. Sure they may have to memorize it but that is only for a good grade. Personally, I had no idea what the pledge of allegiance meant until i was in high school though i had recited it 1000+ times. So…
    If the enemy wants to use kids(sandy hook victim classmates) to attack the second amendment, I will use all of them in an even bigger argument.
    Being that our 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the American people from tyranny in government among other things, it is only common sense to myself that one would have to have a weapon of equal standing which would include not only so called “assault rifles” but fully automatic weapons as well as others. Now, alot of people dont think tyranny in our government is currently a threat, therefore they can justify nibbling at the 2nd amendment. reguardless as to whether or not it is a current threat(I myself beleve it is), dissarming us below the capability of those we may one day have to fight would be a tremendous mistake. One day OUR CHILDREN may have to defend themselves from the government and find that they cannot because todays generations limited or even depleted their firepower.
    Oh and don’t forget about that opposing argument “so we should all have nuclear weapons in our basement?”. Do not be rediculious, obviously our government would not bomb themselves.
    Sure you and I, and many who read this already know this but the hardest thing for me to figure out is how we spread this message. How do we even get them to listen? how do we stop the media from scrubbing so many brains? It is something that is constantly on my mind. people are tired of hearing me talk about it.
    A friend of mine at work finds it fascinating that I at 26 years old care at all about this subject when most of my generation and under could care less. he typed this up for me the other day…
    “…1939, Supreme Court. The United States vs. Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected militia use, which means a weapon currently in use by military is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under article II.” …another great supreme court ruling.
    It’s not going to be easy, but we have got to find a way to remind our nation why exactly the 2nd amendment is in the constitution.

  39. 7delta says:

    Dan said: One day OUR CHILDREN may have to defend themselves from the government and find that they cannot because todays generations limited or even depleted their firepower.

    Good point, Dan. We don’t know what the future holds, even if a current administration is trustworthy. The anti-gun folks should consider an evil Republican may want to go all tyrannical one day down the road. They spent a lot of time saying that about Bush. I don’t care what party someone is, if they go over the line. Our ideological counterpart might want to consider for a moment a broader picture. I’ve even war gamed the scenario that it would be a Republican who brought in the final blow of an end game, because if you wanted to effect a coup, you’d want the most people on your side. Despite the bogus polls, the people who identify as ‘conservative’ or ‘right-leaning’ have not shifted to the left in less than two years after decades of remaining at 38-42% of the population. Neither has the 20% who identify as ‘libera’l, nor the 1-3% of that 20% who identify as ‘progressive’. But it is incumbent on the parties who want to fundamentally change the way things are to make the people think they’re the majority so the opposition thinks they’re outnumbered and resistance is futile. It’s standard operating procedure.

    It’s also important to remember, as many people have pointed out in this thread, that we have enemies who would, indeed, take advantage of a disarmed America. National security would be threatened and a lot of innocent people would die needlessly in the event of an invasion, even if our military was able to repel them. It’s in everyone’s interest to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

  40. Chris Mehr says:

    I commend you for having the courage to write this. I have shared with as many people as possible. Thank you.

  41. Brad says:

    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/13cc47482f2113ac

    Several reports on gun ownership around the world clearly refute the assertion that the abundance of guns in the United States leads to a high rate of firearm homicides.

    Americans are the biggest gun owners by far, with an estimated 270 million civilian firearms, in addition to those used by law enforcement and the military. That’s according to the Small Arms Survey of 178 nations conducted by the Switzerland-based Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

    In sheer numbers of civilian firearms, the No. 2 nation, surprisingly, is India with 46 million, followed by China (40 million), Germany (25 million), Pakistan (18 million), and Mexico (15 million).

    The United States also leads in gun ownership rate, with about 88 firearms per 100 people, according to the most recent Small Arms Survey compiled in 2007.

    That is far ahead of No. 2 Yemen, which has 55 firearms per 100 people. Switzerland is third with 46 per 100 people, followed by Finland (45), Serbia (38), Cyprus (36), Saudi Arabia (35), and Iraq (34).

    But when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the United States doesn’t even make the top 25.

    According to figures collected by the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime through its annual crime survey, 9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm homicide in the most recent year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 population, only the 27th highest rate in the world.

    The highest rate by far can be found in Honduras, 68 homicides per 100,000, followed by El Salvador (40), Jamaica (39), Venezuela (38.9), Guatemala (34), and Colombia (27).

    For America’s neighbors, the rate in Mexico is 9.9 per 100,000, and in Canada, 0.5 per 100,000.

    It is interesting to note that not only does the United States have a relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest ownership rate, is 63rd on the list.

    “The most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence,” writes CNS News commentator Stephen Gutowski. “In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.”

    But in light of the ownership and homicide figures, he observes: “More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.”

  42. David Spencer says:

    Everything was perfectly written dean,i agree with you 100%. i will stand up and fight for my rights and promise the government will never,ever get my guns!

  43. Mark says:

    Brad says – “Side by side comparison of any two countries statistics is misleading at best.”

    Then 2 days later quotes – “Several reports on gun ownership around the world clearly refute the assertion that the abundance of guns in the United States leads to a high rate of firearm homicides.”

    And also Brad Says “I can make my points, and you can make yours, but you cannot really compare because there are too many mitigating factors involved.”

    Which is it Brad? Or are you gleefully reporting your pride at appearing in such esteem company at 27th on the list?

    Brad also says – “as I recall, Marks posts have been a rehashing of Liberal talking points, quick google searches for headlines supporting his view and no in depth research to verify either methodology or supporting documentation.” Grrrrr those pesky liberals at the OECD and Harvard.

    You should try to figure out if you are building bridges or sucking dicks.

    BTW, another reminder, seeing as you like to compare (sometimes) that when you look at 36 countries of a similiar economic standing, OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the US has the 3rd highest murder rate after Mexico and Estonia. And given that 70% of US murders are committed using a firearm the correlation is simple to make.

    More Guns = More Dead People – FACT.

    • Daniel says:

      Correlation =/= Causation. Maybe, just MAYBE, there’s some other under-lying cause. Perhaps it has something to do with rampant gang crime in inner city neighborhoods. Even if you took guns out of the picture these people would have a vested interest in killing others.

      In realty, the supposed goals of gun control can only be achieved through drug control, or rather ending the war on drugs.

    • Brad says:

      Mark, your ignorance never fails to amaze me. This is not a comparison of country to country statistics, it is a study of the amount of guns as it correlates to crime and in particular “gun deaths”. It uses several countries statistics and then ranks them in order to show the FACT that more guns DOES NOT = more crime or more death by guns. It is not trying to obfuscate the topic with the multiplicity of BS talking points that you liberals like to throw in there in an attempt to “muddy the waters”, and confuse the issues because you have absolutely nothing to back up your stance.

      Read the article again, and if you can, without embellishment and out and out lies, tell me where there is a comparison of any two or more countries. It is raw data with percentages and then the countries are listed in order of those INDISPUTABLE numbers. You cannot refute this so you lie, accuse me of lying and then assault my integrity and character. Are you intimating that I am a homosexual because in your heart that is what you are? Or are you “hitting” on me. If you are, I don’t roll that way, I am a Christian, and I know that it is a sin regardless of what is politically correct. “Love the sinner, Hate the sin.”

      • If you get the Smart Computer magazine there is an article about “Trolls” like Mark. It says that people like Mark have no agenda other than to make you angry. They don’t want to debate, they want to argue. If you ignor them they go away and try to find someone on another blogg to upset. Thats how they get their kicks. I don’t recall who it was on this blogg that said ,(paraphasing) Mark is furiously pounding his pud while causing havic in the blogg. Well, this article in the magazine pretty much said the same thing. “autoerotic asphyxiation” lmao @ the “Slimey Limey

    • Oswald Bastable says:

      None of that matters markie, we have the 2nd amendment, a guarantee from the creator of our inherent right to self protection. You have nothing…except fear.

    • Oswald Bastable says:

      Also, we’d appreciate it if you took your homoerotic fantasies to a forum more suited for the perversion that is you.

      • Brad says:

        Thanks Oswald, Thom and 7delta, it’s nice to know that conservatives will always have each others back. Not like the liberals, they’ll turn on their own in a second. They have no honor or integrity, and without that, a man has nothing.

  44. Oswald Bastable says:

    One reason the public, and people (I use the term loosely) like markie are so damned stupid these days…they trust talking heads like this dingbat for information:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2013/02/09/parody-or-does-she-believe-it-cnn-anchor-blames-asteroid-global-warming

    CNN news anchor asks “Science Guy” Bill Nye if an asteroid due for a near earth fly-by on Feb. 15th is due to globull warming…

    It’s a wonder that most of the western world can still tie its own shoes each morning, given the pablum it’s fed by the MSM.

    And we wonder why so many of them are terrified of a tool…

  45. Pingback: If They Come for Your Guns-Then What? » SURVIVAL GEAR STORE

  46. Pingback: Annie Hide Your Guns! | Freedom76.net

  47. Reblogged this on The Ready Center Blog and commented:
    At The Ready Center Blog, we keep all of our articles within the parameters of preparedness. The following article deals with the security portion of preparedness and is written by an author with VERY bold statements regarding our 2nd Amendment rights. Please take the time to read. Enjoy!

  48. Historian says:

    Reposted with your kind permission, Dean

  49. Robert Lang says:

    Great post. The only thing I might add is that there is a difference between taking up arms against the United States and defending yourself from a tyrannical government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s