The last two months of 2011 saw Americans buying guns in record numbers. December 23^rd saw more guns bought in one day that ever before. It set a record.

In an article at “The Telegraph,” a British News site, entitled: “Americans buy record numbers of guns for Christmas,” Nick Allen writes: “According to the FBI, over 1.5 million background checks on customers were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in December. Nearly 500,000 of those were in the six days before Christmas.

It was the highest number ever in a single month, surpassing the previous record set in November.

On Dec 23 alone there were 102,222 background checks, making it the second busiest single day for buying guns in history.

The actual number of guns bought may have been even higher if individual customers took home more than one each.” (SOURCE)

Mr. Allen goes on to say: “Explanations for America’s surge in gun buying include that it is a response to the stalled economy with people fearing crime waves. Another theory is that buyers are rushing to gun shops because they believe tighter firearms laws will be introduced in the future.” (SOURCE)

To be sure BOTH the explanations mentioned above are valid — but there’s more to it that that.

Back in January of 2009, in an article entitled: “Americans Are Arming Themselves. Why?” I wrote the following: “The popular explanation is that Americans are afraid of what this socialist Congress and president will do to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Well, that is CERTAINLY a PART of it, but I think there is more, much more, and a far more serious explanation… and, I am convinced the government believes as I do.

See, I think the American people are preparing themselves to go toe to toe with their government. I believe the American people are making a statement. That statement is: “This Far and No Farther!” In other words, “We are going to give you socialists a chance. But, if you step over the line, if you attempt to deprive us of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, we will not tolerate that.”

Some of us older Americans remember what happened when the socialist took over in Russia in 1917. It is NOT going to be allowed to happen here.

I think it is meant to counter the act of the Bush, and soon, Obama Administrations of bringing combat troops back to The States and stationing them here, on US soil, reportedly for population control in the event of “social unrest” or massive acts of “civil disorder or disobedience” keyed by any number of things including the economy going through the floor, or, well, I’ll let your imagination fill in the blank, because, frankly, the subject is so delicate, I don’t even want to touch it! 

I have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that Americans are sending a signal to their government. That signal is: “We won’t be bullied. There will be a price to pay if you dare step over the line.”  Congress and the President had better pay attention.  It is low profile stuff at the moment, but it can get very big, very fast. And… it is VERY dangerous!” (SOURCE)

Our overseas cousins have great difficulty understanding American’s love of the gun. But it really IS quite simple. You see — America was born at the muzzle of a gun. We won our freedom at the muzzle of a gun. We expanded our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific at the muzzle of a gun. We fought our own war over state’s rights at the muzzle of a gun. We preserved our freedom by defeating the Japanese and the Germans at the muzzle of a gun and we have assisted a number of countries to maintain, or regain, their freedom at the muzzle of a gun. Even now, as I write, the US military is patrolling the waters of the Persian Gulf to protect the transport of approximately 40% of the world’s oil and ensure it’s passage through the Straits of Hormuz — at the muzzle of our big naval guns, and we continue an attempt to salvage Afghanistan and drag it into the 21^st century by fighting off religious fanatics — at the muzzle of a gun.

Americans understand the importance of the ability of every man to defend himself, his family, and his freedom. We also understand the importance of assisting our global neighbors in defending their freedom — for the loss of their freedom brings the threat one step closer to our shores.

Americans have a scared duty to halt the encroachment of domestic tyranny. Freedom is our birthright and we WILL defend it.

Many Americans are deeply concerned over the state of the world today. We remember what happened in the 1930’s when the world found itself in similar circumstances to today. It led to a world war.

Then, too, there is this: We rather like the rogue nations, the terrorists, the tyrants, and tin-pot dictators to know that the American public is armed to the teeth, ready, and willing to defend our country should they, through some mental aberration, have designs on it. The LAST thing you want to confront is a PO’ed American with a gun!

Oh, … and we like to hunt, too.

J. D. Longstreet
***********************************
VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN NOVEMBER 2012
***********************************
Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

When we celebrate the Fourth of July, let’s keep in mind that the first Americans won their independence from England with the force of arms. It was, in fact, a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.

The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that, after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

Wherever authoritarian regimes were established in the last century, they took away this right and then proceeded to kill those deemed enemies of the state.

At this point in American history, the Obama administration constitutes a threat to the Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

More than 80,000,000 Americans are gun owners.

Two of the organizations that have been fighting to protect these rights are the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), both led by Alan M. Gottlieb. Three quarters of the SAF budget is devoted to defending rights pertaining to the ownership of guns and to carry them for self-defense.

In March, the liberal Huffington Post had an article titled “Obama Looking for Ways Around Congress on Gun Policy” by Sam Stein. “Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials, say.”

Since then we have learned of a U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms program, Fast and Furious, that actually facilitated the sale and transfer of guns to Mexico. How demented is that?

In May in my home state of New Jersey the SAF won a decision against officials for the deprivation of civil rights under the color of law when they had ruled that an applicant for a concealed carry permit had not demonstrated a “justifiable need” for it. In point of fact, the applicant, Philip Muller, had been kidnapped by members of a motorcycle gang who threatened to kill him. They had, however, grabbed the wrong man.

Despite support by local and state police, action on his application was delayed for six months. Morris County Superior Court Judge David Ironson issued a directive that a permit should be granted. The case is still on-going with other plaintiffs that include a part-time sheriff’s deputy, an applicant who carries large amounts of cash in his private business, and a civilian employee of the FBI with legitimate concerns of an attack from a radical Islamic group.

Currently nearly thirty such cases have either been brought or joined by SAF to stop abuses of this most fundamental right of American citizens ranging from bans on interstate handgun sales, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s imposition of a $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in one’s home, and a Chicago ban on gun ranges open to the public. These cases cost between $60,000 and $80,000 each!

The greatest single threat to gun ownership right now is a United Nations “Small Arms Treaty” falsely identified as an “international arms control treaty” allegedly to fight terrorism.”

“In reality,” says Gottlieb, it is “a massive, global gun control scheme. It’s a sham. It’s a fraud.” If the U.S., under the Obama administration and with the consent of the Senate, were to sign on to this treaty, it would nullify the Second Amendment.

Suffice to say that the Obama administration wants to have the power to increase federal fees on guns and ammunition, to ban guns that are imported, to extend the waiting periods for permits, to ban the use of guns on all government property, and even to make it illegal if you own a gun and smoke!

Americans do not have to “justify” gun ownership. It is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The reality is that enemies of this fundamental rights continue to wage an assault on it.

For information about SAF visit http://www.saf.org/ and CCRKBA at http://www.ccrkba.org/.
© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

[pro-player width='230' height='50http://westerfrontamerica.com/audio/' type='sound']http://westernfrontamerica.com/audio/The_Gun_Is_Civilization.mp3[/pro-player]

(Click arrow to listen to this article. Read by Thomas Dunn)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

 

WesternFront America

One of the reasons newspaper circulation and TV news ratings are falling is because people no longer trust journalists. They are tired of being mislead as reporters select and distort news coverage to conform to the media’s ideology.

Monday produced two prime examples and both involved slanted opinion surveys.

The first was headlined: “Gap seen between public, General Assembly on recent stances.” The story showcased a Christopher Newport University survey that claimed eight out of ten Virginians supported a new law that would require background checks for all firearms purchasers at gun shows, including those who purchase from private individuals.

The reporter, Jim Nolan, predicts an obstinate Virginia General Assembly will ignore “the public’s strong preferences.” What Nolan doesn’t say is the survey was dishonest and specifically designed to produce an answer supporting additional regulation.

The question read: “Under Virginia law, in order for an individual to be able to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a licensed firearms dealer, that individual must first pass a criminal background check. However, that same individual could purchase a firearm at that same gun show from an unlicensed seller without first having to pass a criminal background check. This is known as the GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. Do you support changing the law to close this loophole so that anyone purchasing a firearm at a gun show has to pass a criminal background check first or should the law remain as it is?”

There are two methodology problems that distort the results. The term “unlicensed seller” implies someone is skirting the law and gives a negative connotation to the listener. Second, using the pejorative term “GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE” is simply malpractice. Repeating the term “loophole” doubles the dishonesty. The technical term for this, aside from lying, is tainting the sample.

An honest poll uses neutral language. A biased, pro–gun control poll uses loaded language to influence results.

I’m surprised only 80 percent wanted to change the law, maybe a few lobbyists slipped into the sample. American’s don’t like “loopholes” that slippery people use to get by with something.

The only loophole a vast majority of the public would not support eliminating is one that allowed adultery; and even then women would be for elimination.

If the sponsors of the survey — CNU, The Virginian–Pilot and WVEC–TV — had been interested in accuracy, the question would have been:

“Under Virginia law, to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a licensed firearms dealer an individual must first pass a criminal background check. However, that same individual is allowed purchase a firearm at that same gun show from a private citizen without first passing a criminal background check. Do you support changing the law so that a person who makes an private sale at a gun show is required to conduct a criminal background check before he can sell the firearm to another individual or should the law remain as it is?”

This answer would truly reflect public opinion, because the wording accurately and neutrally describes the existing situation. The CNU poll does neither.

If a Republican candidate conducts a poll with questionable wording, he’s blasted for conducting a “push poll.” When the media does it, the poll is a public service.

Example two concerns Obamacare. This story claims strong opposition is at the lowest level since September 2009, once again based on biased questioning: “In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reforms that were passed by Congress in March?”
The misleading term is “reforms.” “Reforms” implies something was wrong with the status quo and the law corrected the situation.

Interestingly, the word “reform” does not appear in the Associated Press story, evidently because the term served its purpose in the questionnaire. Yet, even after cooking the books, AP still couldn’t get the desired outcome, so the reporter simply distorts the results.

He doesn’t tell you “strong opposition” levels are three times that of merely “oppose.” Which is the reverse of most polling, where general support or opposition is usually far higher than intense feelings.
Even more damning is that “strongly support” Obamacare is 21 percent, while “somewhat support” is 19 percent, almost a one–to–one ratio.

Successful political consultants know the side with the intense support is the side that wins and opposition to Obama’s “reform” remains far more intense, regardless of temporary polling fluctuations.
Recently the Richmond Times–Dispatch and PolitiFact.com have partnered to produce the “Virginia Truth–O–Meter” where august journalists evaluate the veracity of statements made by politicians after they filter the facts through their own ideological prism. The scale on the meter ranges from true to “pants–on–fire.”

My suggestion for the partnership would be to perform a real public service and broaden its focus to include another category of dangerous fantasists: liberal political reporters.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He can be reached at michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www2.insidenova.com/topics/types/person/tags/michael-r-shannon/

 

WesternFront America

Wouldn’t you know it? Turn a bunch of Republicans loose in the Virginia legislature and governor’s office and before you can say “Socialized Medicine” they are exposing school kids to guns. Why can’t we get back to normal where Democrats expose school children to safe products, like condoms?

In this latest outrage, the General Assembly has directed the state’s Board of Education to produce a curriculum for teaching gun safety to elementary school children that incorporates the advice of the National Rifle Association.

I’m not a highly–paid educrat, but it would appear to me that an organization that is familiar with guns would have some useful ideas on how to handle firearms safely.

“Bad Gun! No! No!” hardly seems like adequate training.

Isn’t the American Automobile Association, which favors a product that kills thousands of innocent Americans each year, permitted to offer advice on the safe operation of autos?

I think I detect a double or Democrat standard here. Planned Abortionhood is allowed — in fact encouraged by Democrats — to offer advice on the most expeditious way to kill your baby; so why can’t the NRA be allowed to weigh in on keeping kids alive around guns?

Naturally Democrats amended the bill in the senate, which they control, to incorporate the wisdom of the “National Crime Prevention Center.” Unfortunately for gun control fundamentalists there is no “National Crime Prevention Center.” In it’s disingenuous Democrat way this is perfect example of their thought process: a fictitious group to address a non–existent problem.

Fortunately, Governor McDonnell — just in from saying the invocation at the Confederate States of America Day of Prayer — vetoed that provision of the bill saving our children from more exposure to Democrat fantasy.

Speaking of fantasy, in the District of Columbia we just had another episode of When Delusions Collide; a tragic story of unmet expectations and shattered hopes. Obama, combined with an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress, looked like nirvana for the fevered political hacks that “govern” DC. Every misbegotten social engineering program that had been thwarted by “Just Say No” Republicans was suddenly in the on­–deck circle.

Eleanor Holmes Norton could see her long–sought official vote in the House of Representatives looming on the horizon. Until evil Republicans, as is their wont, spoiled the party. They amended the bill that would have given DC it’s first Member of Congress by including a provision that would have banned most of the city’s gun–control laws.

Thanks to Republicans, the District — currently a well–known island of peace and tranquility — would have its reverie shattered by the introduction of guns into Eden.

That was too much for the Plague of Women Voters and D.C. for Democracy. They stamped their collective Manolo Blahniks and said they could not support the bill because it would take away the city’s right to prohibit law–abiding citizens from possessing guns by concocting new impediments to ownership.

Their joint statement whined, “The destruction of D.C.’s gun-safety laws is too high of a price (sic) to pay for the passage of the D.C. Voting Rights Act. Asking citizens to sacrifice their safety in order to have representation in Congress is unacceptable.”

There is a certain symmetry and intellectual consistency to their argument: they are willing to forgo an unconstitutional addition to the House of Representatives so they can keep — for a time at least — their unconstitutional gun laws.

But the end result is you have fanatics who are obsessed with laws that don’t work, throwing away what has been termed the best opportunity in a generation for voting representation in Congress.

Talk about clinging to your gods and gun laws…

Tim Cooper, executive director of Worldrights, scorched Holmes for supporting the bill in spite of the gun deregulation amendment: “Does the voting rights brain trust actually believe that winning minimal representational rights in Congress ranks higher on the scale of achievement than protecting public safety and ensuring the right to life?” Which, come to think of it, is a really poor choice of words for a leftist Democrat.

Next thing you know people will think he’s opposed to abortion.

Council member Mary Cheh (D – Mental Ward) griped, “The gun amendment displays a complete contempt for the people of the District of Columbia. It’s a disgusting deal and should be rejected.”
Actually, I think it shows contempt for the political class, which I heartily endorse.

Now the DC brain trust has the worst of all worlds: no vote in Congress and a Supreme Court that is hell bent on upholding the 2nd Amendment. Maybe they should change their license plate slogan from “Taxation Without Representation” to “Deluded, Defenseless & Dependent.”

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He’s a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker and can be reached at michael–shannon@comcast.net

 

WesternFront America

Text of the 2nd amendment to the US 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.”

What part of “SHALL NOT” do the gun control advocates NOT UNDERSTAND?

This time, the US Supreme Court has been asked to decide if the states have the right to take your guns away. We’re talking about the state governments – not the federal government.

The “gun grabbers” have not given up. Oh, no! They are “true believers,” choosing to believe in the myth and the fairy tale that if you take people’s guns away America will be a safer place. They believe this in spite of the facts out there for everyone to see.

See, those stubborn facts tell a different story. Those facts tell us that when you mandate by law that citizens must give up their guns, law-abiding citizens will do it. They won’t like it. They will grumble and fuss, but in the end — they will give them up. On the other hand the citizens who do not abide by the law will not give up their guns and, as a result, a huge power shift occurs. Power is snatched from the hands of the law-abiding citizens and given to the government and the outlaws…. but I repeat myself. Next comes anarchy.

I’ll make a prediction here. If the time ever comes in America when the government, state or federal, forces the citizens to give up their guns and the bad guys begin their reign of fear, a cottage industry will spring up all across the land. It will be an industry turning out homemade firearms. Soon that will turn into a full-fledged black market where underground illicit firearms factories will be created to meet the demand from citizens seeking protection for their homes and their families.

There is something very important the elite in this country, apparently, do not know. That is — just how easy it is to produce a firearm. Even “yours truly” produced homemade firearms while still a student in high school. I even had a single shot 22 caliber “zip gun” (made by me) sewn inside the sleeve of my black horsehide leather jacket! No Joke! I was serious then — and I am serious now.

A fellow student produced a handgun so powerful it blew a nice fat, round, hole through the side of his father’s barn. And we were KIDS! How sophisticated do you think a couple of high school kids were about the intricacies of producing firearms?

The point is — just like prohibition, a ban on firearms in the United States will back fire and it will create more problems than ever expected by the gungrabbers and/or the government whether that government is state or federal. And mark this: neither a state government nor the federal government will be able to handle it.

Let us say, hypothetically, of course, that a state government decides to ban guns within that state. How long do you think it will be before thriving gun smuggling operations are set up to meet the demand for guns in that “gun-free” state? I’d give it hours. Maybe the leaders of the gungrabbers have not thought about this – but you can bet the ATF has!

Understand this. Banning guns in the United States is impossible. It cannot be done, except on paper. The citizens of this country will be armed.

The Supreme Court will, more than likely, hand down their decision before June of this year. The American citizens have already made their decision. They WILL have guns – one way — or the other.

© J. D. Longstreet

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

 

WesternFront America

It is impossible to separate the two. I mean, of course, guns and America. Guns obtained and secured the country we now know as “America” for the people we now know as “Americans.”

As the settlers/pilgrims stepped ashore in the New World they carried their trusty weapons, guns. When the frontiersmen dipped their toes into the waters of the western sea, the Pacific, no doubt they clutched in their hands a later variant of the same weapon the Pilgrims had in their grips when their toes touched the sand of the Carolina, Virginia, and New England beaches. It had been a long journey but guns had fed, clothed, and protected these new people, called Americans, as they laid claim to a new land destined to become the leader of the free world, if not the entire world.

When these restless people, the Americans, decided their “King” was demanding more from them than they were willing to give, the gun won them their Independence. Some eighty years later, these same restless peoples decided to fight a war amongst themselves over, depending upon how you decipher history, “States Rights” or “Slavery”. (In my case, I have done the research and know that States Rights was the cause of the American Civil War simply because the facts, when laid bare, support that interpretation. Yes, slavery BECAME an issue in the war but only after the war had raged for nearly two years and when Lincoln needed political support, badly, from the abolitionists, for the war he was losing! All this is for another day, in a different venue, so I will cut it short by urging you to actually read the “Emancipation Proclamation” if you are REALLY interested in learning just how many slaves were freed by that piece of political propaganda. The answer was, of course, NONE.). In any event, the gun, carried by both sides in the conflict devastated the countries and some say forged a single entity known as the UNITED States of America. Only recently, frankly, have I begun to question that.

In all the wars since, the gun has taken the war to America’s enemies and protected the Americans wielding it and managed to secure the freedom and liberties our forefathers put their lives and their fortunes on the line for back in the 1700’s. Together, we have come a very long way the gun and America.

But, just as there were two camps in the days preceding the American Civil War, there are two camps today as regards the gun and the American citizen. One camp made up of folks who think Americans have no need of the gun, and those in the second camp who feel Americans and the gun are inseparable… and should be.

“Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership. Society does not benefit from gun control.” I have no idea who said that first, but it would make an excellent motto for the Americans who believe Americans and guns are inseparable.

The argument over guns flares up, it seems, with each new Presidential Administration’s entrance into the White House. Much the same thing happens after each congressional election and when a new Justice is vetted for the US Supreme Court. As we are just a few weeks into all three happening, both camps have applied their war paint and are looking for opportunities to make their positions known and likewise feel out the new people in the White House, on The Hill and on The Court.

When our forefathers wrote the constitution their collective wisdom was based upon all the collective wisdom from creation up to their day. To our knowledge, there were no “seers” or clairvoyants among them. In other words, no one could see the future or what it held for this brand new country and, indeed, the world. Had there been, I expect the final version of the constitution would read much differently from the end version we have today.

Recently, the US Supreme Court ruled that the constitution actually meant what it said about US citizens having the right to keep and bear arms. The 2^nd Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It is important to notice that the decision in favor of the Forefathers won by a single vote of the Court. The vote was 5 – 4 in favor of interpreting the 2^nd amendment so Americans did not have to turn in their guns or have the US Government confiscate them.

The obvious problem with this vote is that it will instigate more litigation until finally, at some point, those who wish to take away that right will succeed. In fact, many feel the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court may, in fact, be the final straw and the next time the second amendment is tried before this court Americans will lose their right to keep and bear arms.

Thinking about it for a while now, I have concluded that we may have at least two more chances before we lose our guns. Until the liberals in America manage one more seat on the court, we may, and I say “MAY” with trepidation, get one more case decided in favor of my side, (the side in favor of allowing Americans their right to keep and bear arms) before we lose the next case and, along with it, our right to keep and bear arms. (By the way, define “ARMS.” Does it cover knives? If so, how long? How many edges? Hilt or hiltless? , etc, etc.)

As one who favors the right to keep and bear arms I am concerned over the Sotomayor appointment to The Court. Why? Well, first of all, I accept that she will be seated on the court. It is a done deal. But there are indicators from her past that concern me. These indicators cause me to believe that when the chips are down she will vote to ignore the obvious meaning of the second amendment and support taking away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Let us looks at some of those indicators:

She has spoken out against the Heller decision in which the Supreme Court recognized the individual right to keep and Bear Arms.

She has expressed disdain for private gun ownership dating back to her senior thesis at Princeton University, where she wrote that America has a “deadly obsession” with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.

In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she stated: “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

And In addition to her record opposing the Second Amendment, she has also strongly advocated judicial activism. (In some ways, this worries me more about Ms. Sotomayor than her obvious problem with the 2^nd Amendment!)

If this Sotomayor record does not give you pause, then, frankly, I don’t know what will.

So America edges ever closer to losing the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, quite possibly even the right to carry a knife. There can be no doubt that a knife, in the time of our forefathers, was, indeed, a weapon. It would, no doubt, fall into the category of “arms.” There can also be no doubt as to why the forefathers felt it important to place this amendment in the constitution as a part of the original 10 amendments that made up the Bill of Rights. They had just fought a war against a tyrant to gain their freedom – and they did it with a citizen’s army composed of men who owned their own weapons!

George Washington, the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States said the following: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Thomas Jefferson said the following: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

And finally, words from the most well known of the tyrants of the last century, Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

It is good, I think to note that “The Forefathers” felt so highly of the right to keep and bear arms that it is the SECOND Amendment. The first being, of course, freedom of speech, religion, etc.

We must tread softly, yet boldly, as we attempt to protect our rights these days. America has two generations of citizens trained in socialism as products of the Public (Government) School System. Like “Pavlov’s Dog” they await only the ringing of the bell to respond in defense of the “greater good.” But, like the other dog, chasing it’s tail, they haven’t the reasoning ability to ask of themselves what they intend to do with the tail if, and when, they DO catch it?

 

WesternFront America