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

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

… OBAMA LEADS THE UN GUNGRABBER PACK.

Back in October of 2009, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, publicly announced that the US WOULD support UN negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking. The Bush administration, you may remember, and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, opposed negotiations of this treaty for years.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has said: “Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms. The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area.”

The US then joined a vote, which was almost unanimous; to adopt a resolution, which would set a schedule, a timetable, on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty. Within that resolution was a proposal to finalize the accord in the year 2012.

Gun Owners in the US are gravely concerned over this move by the UN – and — more importantly, by the Obama Regime, to support it. To many gun enthusiasts it is a dangerous submission of America’s Constitution to “Global Governance” — and there is a growing belief that it is an attempt by the Obama Regime to create private gun control laws it knows it cannot get through the US Congress. It doesn’t take any imagination, at all, to quickly understand that this treaty would effectively cancel rights granted US citizens by the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. Our right to “keep and bear arms” would no longer exist.

US gun rights supporters are up in arms – and with good reason. John Bolton, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations, fought the proposed treaty for quite a while. He has seen it up close and personally.

Bolton, in remarks he made recently to Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Associations’ NRA News and host of the NRA’s Daily News program, said the following: “The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Bolton continued: “There’s never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what’s legal and what’s not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there’s no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.”

Bolton went on to say: “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” he said. “The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

It turns out there are some seven countries pushing the UN Arms Treaty, Great Britain, Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, and Kenya.

Interestingly, Great Britain has had a virtual explosion of violent crime since they all but banned guns back in 1997. Just a few months ago, the British press reported that England and Wales now have the highest violent crime in the European Union – a rate which, in fact, exceeds that of the United States and even hyper-violent South Africa. Mailonline reported: “In the decade following [the election of the Labor Party] in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 percent to 1.158 million – more than two every minute.”

It seems that Great Britain, with their near ban of gun ownership by private citizens, has a violent crime victimization rate of 2,034 per 100,000 residents. While here, in the, oh, so violent USA, with our far less restrictive gun laws, we have a violence rate of only 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. Even South Africa’s rate is lower, at 1,677 violent crimes per 100,000. You can read an exceptional article on this subject HERE.

In the land “down under,” Australia, the Aussies are suffering an escalation in violent crimes as well. The Australia Institute of Criminology reports that assault alone occurs at a rate of 840 per 100,000 – a rate that increased dramatically since the Port Arthur ban.

You might find it interesting what the Aussies have to put up with now that firearms are nearly banned in their fair land. It is, indeed, a warning for their cousins, the Americans. “The Manly Daily” reported, back in October of 2009, that pursuant to the Australian Firearms Act of 1996: “Northern Beaches Police will be turning up on the doorstep of every licensed gun owner in the area over the next four years to check their firearms are stored correctly.

Operation Aston follows the gun amnesty that ended on May 31 and will target guns stored incorrectly and the security of gun safes, Northern Beaches Commander Doreen Cruickshank said.

“Gun owners have a responsibility to ensure their weapon is safely stored at all times when not in use,” Supt Cruickshank said.

“Licensing police will be attending the home of every licensed firearm owner in the northern beaches over the next four years to inspect every weapon and check the gun safe.

“Officers will be examining all gun safes to ensure they comply with the legislative requirements, particularly in relation to the standard and security of safes.”

Supt Cruickshank reminded all legitimate owners that under the Firearms Act they must take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safekeeping of their firearms.

“It’s especially important that weapons are stored in such a way as to limit the possibility of loss or theft, so they don’t come into the possession of a person who isn’t authorized to hold them,” she said.

The maximum penalty for incorrect storage of a weapon is two years in jail. You may read the article HERE.

You might be interested in this, as well: In Australia, for every firearm, a purchaser must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit for each person has a mandatory 28 day delay before it is issued. In some states, such as Queensland, this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class, whilst in others, it is not. For each firearm a “Genuine Reason” must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license.

THIS is where America is headed if the “gungrabbers” get their “reasonable gun control” laws. They know they cannot get those laws passed through Congress but they have an excellent chance to get them through the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

*********************************************************

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at:

http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

longstreet1862@gmail.com

Join Christians Against Leftist Heresy

_____________________________

Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://csadispatch.blogspot.com/. Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

The Second Amendment is one of the most often debated “individual” right afforded by our founding fathers in the Constitution. Recently it has been under direct attack by those who believe the Constitution is a “fluid” set of “guidelines” and not the foundation of the American Criminal Justice code. While I will try not to get into the many varied explanations regarding this, it should be noted that arguments of this nature do in fact exist.

When the founding fathers set out to put together this grand experiment called these United States they understood that ensuring lasting freedom would be a challenge. Over time, every Democratic Republic has eventually been discarded for any number of reasons. Thus when they set about to write the Constitution of this great nation it was with great thought and over the course of almost three full years that the First Ten Amendments were put into place. The initial reason for the Ten Amendments was not to limit the people, but to limit the Federal Government and empower the people. The reason for these first Ten Amendments were solely to address individual rights. The founders “demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.”

Thomas Jefferson was very clear regarding individual rights when he drafted the Declaration of Independence and he drew heavily upon Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, the Virginia Constitutional Convention adopted it on June 12, 1776. When James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon this document as well. What should be noted is that the rights in the Bill of Rights were meant as Individual Rights, and not as “fluid” rights pertaining to whatever false sense of governance a sitting president and their cabinet may perceive. Modern lawyers and politicians who are against the private acquisition and use of Firearms of any type tend to forget that it was private firearms, cannons, and powder etc. that won this country its freedom originally. On the other hand, maybe they have not forgotten that. Maybe they realize, as did the Founding Fathers that it is the individuals owning and possessing the items that will curtail the broad and sweeping powers of a despotic government. Of course they now want control of these items of self defense so as to prevent the people from defending themselves from a government that wishes nothing but more control.

The Second Amendment clearly states the following, “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.” Of course, an alternative that was circulated to the states reads as follows, “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.” Taken in context and with the thoughts of the Founding Fathers to help one cannot see that this means anything other than an Individuals Right to Keep and Bear arms. “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people can preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Colonel William S. Smith 1787

Many people purposefully misinterpret the Bill of Rights to mean something it does not; John Adams in his Thoughts on Government 1776 stated the following. “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have the incontestable, unalienable and indefensible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” I can see the gears turning in heads and many shaking their heads. I hope you all realize that this quote was never meant to ensure health care for everyone. On the contrary, it was meant to keep our government from taking away our rights (i.e. Patriot Act, Harrison Act, IRS and various gun control acts.) and it was meant to provide and ensure that we the people would not have to pay our tax dollars to keep our Political “representatives” buddies business’s in business.

Therefore, for those who really truly believe that our government means the best for us when they spend trillions of dollars that they do not have to ensure their favorite corporations remain in business. For those that believe that we should give away our rights to defend ourselves because some stuffed hat says so, and for those that believe that any of the current Measures currently before Congress or the House are meant for the good of everyone for you I can only be afraid. For those of you who believe as I do and would like to see this nation become as it once was, respected, powerful, and above all free remember one thing, our freedoms were won because a few men decided it was time to stand up for those freedoms.

In this coming year we will have a chance to reaffirm our desire to keep those freedoms and remain free, to begin to take back our rights and lives and re-create a bright future for our children. To do this we will need to vote for leaders who have not sold out to their business friends and we will need to vote in leaders who are there solely to represent us as they were meant to do originally. This is a country founded on the ideals of men who saw the problems of their time, and those problems are not so different than today, remember this when you vote and when you speak to others.

Do not get me wrong, I as Thomas Jefferson did “Abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge on this planet,” however, the following may also be applied.

“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for him, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change if circumstances become his own.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803

Originally posted at Examiner.com © Jesse Mathewson

 

WesternFront America

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” — Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island”

This quote is taken from the Oathkeepers website.  I’ve been aware of them for a few weeks now, but am now finally getting around to doing a post on them.  As the name implies, the Oathkeepers believe in keeping their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.  Their oath is in ten statements shown here.

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Here is more from their website.

Oath Keepers is a non partisan association of currently serving military, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical. We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. We won’t “just follow orders.” Our motto: “Not on Our Watch!” or to put it even more succinctly, in the words of  101st Airborne Commander General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge, “NUTS!”

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues.  But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.

We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.

Help us win it.

This, in my opinion, is an outstanding development.  I am pleased to see that many Americans are choosing to take on the responsibility of actually keeping their oath to protect and uphold the constitution.  While that comment may sound sarcastic, that is not the intent.  As we all are aware, we are watching an unprecedented attempt by our own government to water down, or outright eliminate many of our individual freedoms.  Distrust of the government, particularly at the federal level, is at all time highs.  I personally take great comfort that there are people in positions of responsibility willing to take this oath.

I would have to assume that taking this oath might come at some personal risk.  Given the federal government’s stance that anyone who disagrees with the POTUS is a terrorist, these people are facing probable investigation.  Given the extent to which government officials visit this blog (thanks Stat Counter), it’s not a stretch to believe that the government would also check on the online activities of people that take this oath.  Also depending upon the scenario, people taking this oath, and as well as depending upon their employment or service, they could face job loss, imprisonment, court-martial, or other punishments for upholding their oath.  These people are taking their oath seriously, perhaps at personal risk to themselves.  If you know an Oathkeeper, thank them and support them.  If you are in a position that may one day require you to participate in anything described in the Oathkeeper’s statements, please consider taking the oath yourself.  Just know that you will have made yourself some powerful enemies in the process.

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0 © Matt Ross

 

WesternFront America