Conservative Political Views






“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

“When your children and grandchildren ask you what happened to America make sure you can say ‘I tried my best to stop it’.”

“An excuse is an explanation of failure.”

“Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”



This is our last appeal.  Anyone and everyone who will be attending and has not informed us – we need to know now.  The March has changed.  There will no longer be a specified route for the Cross Country March.

We will hold the specified route concept in abeyance until next year when it will be reevaluated. For a variety of reasons we are cancelling the specified route for the March and each person will be responsible for getting to the Muster Point in their own way. You may construct your own March, you may fly in to D.C., take your RV or develop any scenario you so desire to reach the Muster Point to meet on September 17, 2014 (Constitution Day).


The Muster Point this year will be the Springfield Mall in Springfield, VA. We will meet from 8:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. at the Muster Point. We will then travel from there by METRO to the Capitol. The Springfield Mall is very close to the intersection of I-95 and I-495. The Springfield Mall is bounded on the North by Franconia Road E., on the East by Frontier Road, on the South by Spring Mall Rd., and on the West by Loisdale Road. We will meet on the South section of the mall on Spring Mall Rd. about halfway between Loisdale Road and Frontier Road. From the Southeast corner of the Springfield Mall it is only about ¼ mile to the METRO Franconia-Springfield Station from where we will take the BLUE Line getting off at the METRO L’Enfant  Station and walking four blocks to the meeting point. It is almost impossible to park in D.C. on a weekday and even if you can find a place it will cost you $50 to $60 to park whereas the METRO station parking is $4.75. The total cost to park and ride the METRO round trip will be about $15.

There are no public restrooms (except for emergencies) on the METRO trains or in the METRO stations. When we get to the meeting point there will be restrooms available. You have been warned! Take precautions as necessary. There is a restaurant near the Comfort Inn off Loisdale Road that serves breakfast and has restrooms. There is also a restaurant just off Franconia Road E. in the Springfield Mall.

The METRO ride to the Capitol takes about 30 minutes. We will meet on the lawn between the Capitol and the Washington Monument and directly across from the Air and Space Museum on that side of the lawn.

There are hotels/motels on Loisdale Road near the Northwest portion of the Springfield Mall. They are the Hilton Hotel, Hampton Inn, Comfort Inn and the Courtyard Marriott. The Marriott is slightly farther than the others and is near the intersection of Loisdale Road and Franconia Road W. Those of you who fly in to Reagan Airport and do not wish to rent a car may get on the Blue Line at Reagan Airport and go to the Franconia-Springfield Station and walk to one of the hotels/motels mentioned above. The walk is about ½ mile. Reservations suggested.

Dress and act like the fine patriotic people you are. If you wish to wear military apparel that is fine. If you are active duty military get permission from your commander before wearing any active duty military apparel.


We are planning on making this an annual event. Be thinking of how we can get some publicity, local news coverage, TV, or whatever. Anyone may participate in this march and they do not have to be enlisted with us. We will leave the Capitol at approximately 6:00 P.M. and return to the Muster Point. At approximately 7:00 P.M. we will meet for dinner at a location near the Muster Point to be announced on September 17.

We need people to be at the Muster Point so we can go to Washington D.C. and make our complaints clear.  Did you read the five quotes at the top of this report? If not, read them again. This is the time. We especially need the people from VA, MD, DE, WV, TN, NC and other nearby states to come help us on September 17. Bring any like-minded people you know with you – the more people we have the more government areas we can cover. We need to cover the Congress, Supreme Court, the IRS and as many Executive Branch offices as we can. There is no need to go to the White House since it will not do any good.

Respond to if you are planning to attend.

We need patriots in Washington, D.C. on September 17.

If you absolutely cannot come, we need you to pass out flyers in your local area on September 17. If you cannot pass them out on September 17 pass them out as closely as you possibly can to September 17. The best place to pass them out is at your nearest military installation – we need to remind our military of their oath. If you cannot get to a military installation pass them out at your local federal government offices. IRS offices or any federal court is good. Find a federal government agency near you and pass them out. As a last resort go to your local Post Office and pass them out. Before you go to any of these federal government entities make sure you do some reconnaissance and find out what the rules are. We want to do all of this in a perfectly legal manner and we want to pass these flyers out all over the nation.

Some of you are disappointed because we are only passing out flyers. This is what we can do at this time. If it helps you to visualize this look at the flyer as your weapon, look at the words on the flyer as your ammunition, and look at the work in D.C. as maneuvers and reconnaissance.

The flyers are extremely important to what we are attempting to accomplish. The first step is to make crystal clear what your complaint consists of in the shortest possible way. Anything over one page is too long and no one will read it. It must be short and to the point. During Operation American Spring they passed out large packets with volumes of information inside. No one will read that much information unless they are being paid to do so. We want a short printed record of our position that cannot be misunderstood.

Let us know as soon as possible if you will be coming to the Muster Point and how many you will be bringing. People do not have to be enlisted to participate.


As many of you know, we are spending our first year only recruiting. We will never stop recruiting of course, but we will have other objectives in addition to recruiting after our first year.  This web site was launched on September 17 (Constitution Day), 2013 and we started recruiting about 5 days later.

TX still leads in total recruits with 10.4% of all recruits. Following TX is CA (8.0%) FL (7.2%) NC (4.2%) GA (3.8%) PA (3.4%) TN (3.3%) NY (3.3%). CA and PA both had a good month.

Based upon state population for states with over two million in population the top eight are:  TN MS AL NV SC NC OK KY. OK and KY both had a good showing in August. States with under two million in population are led by WY, NH, ME, ID and NE.

This paragraph is not statistically accurate and is an approximation since some of our enlistees do not give us complete information. Our female enlistees are staying at about 4 out of every 10. About 45% of all enlistees (including some female) have military experience. We have every military grade from E-1 to E-9, W1 to W4, and O-1 to O-7. We have military with Silver Stars, Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts. We have military with all types of training and awards. Of all enlistees about 65% are in the age category 40-60. About 20% are over 60 and about 15% are under 40. Our over 60 people increased in August. We had several people enlist in August who were born in the 40s and early 50s with military experience – these are almost all Vietnam veterans. This is why we increased our over 60 percentage from 15% to 20%. We also had some younger people enlist in August and that is encouraging.

Recruiting in Nov. 2013 exceeded Oct. 2013 by 24%. Recruiting in Dec. 2013 exceeded Nov. 2013 by 43%. Recruiting in Jan. 2014 exceeded Dec. 2013 by 97%. January enlistees reached 95% of all the previous months combined. Jan. 2014 was a huge month. In February, due to various technical problems, we were only able to recruit for 18 of the 28 days. It is therefore unfair to compare February to any other month. Still, in February and despite all the setbacks, we exceeded our recruiting totals for every other previous month except January 2014 – those results were extremely encouraging. March 2014 was our seventh largest recruiting month. April 2014 was our third largest recruiting month. May 2014 was our sixth largest recruiting month. June 2014 was our fourth largest recruiting month almost reaching April 2014. We are extremely encouraged by the May and June results since often in late May and early June people will not participate due to graduations, vacations and weddings. July 2014 was our largest recruiting month topping January 2014 by 20%. July 3, 4, 5 were our 4th, 5th, and 3rd largest recruiting days ever as the patriotic spirit was kindled by Independence Day. August, in spite of several minor technical problems that hampered us parts of the entire month, was our fifth largest recruiting month just missing June.

During the first five full months after September 2013 we had already surpassed our recruiting goal for the entire first year. Thank you to each one of you for your courage and patriotism. We do not give out strength reports but we can tell everyone that our total strength is >1,000 and <10,000.

We are now in all 50 states, and 11 other countries. We also have enlistees in Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. Most of the people enlisted in other countries are Americans living outside the United States. We are like Washington’s Continental Army, however, in the sense that we will welcome help from anyone who is a patriot and wants to see our Constitution restored.

What is the most encouraging are the many people who have enlisted from small towns in America. This is a small town revolution – the people who have not been heard are beginning to speak up. While we have enlistees in many major cities, it is the voices in small town America that ring loudest. The Founder has been in all 50 states and has never heard of many of these cities so we have been looking them up on the Internet – impressive. Find the people in your small town who are fed up and get them enlisted and then form a unit in your town.

As a change of pace this month (and to see if you are paying attention) we have listed below the cities in each state that have the most people enlisted. Many of these are as expected but you will also find some surprises in the list.

Wasilla AK              Huntsville AL         Hot Springs AR         Phoenix AZ

San Diego CA         Denver CO             New Haven CT         Frankford DE

Jacksonville FL       Atlanta GA             Honolulu HI              Des Moines IA

Meridian ID            Chicago IL              Indianapolis IN        Wichita KS

Louisville KY           Shreveport LA       Boston MA               Baltimore MD

Portland ME           Lansing MI             St. Paul MN              St. Louis MO

Laurel MS               Butte MT                Raleigh NC               Richardton ND

Omaha NE             Concord NH           Toms River NJ          Albuquerque NM

Las Vegas NV         Rochester NY         Toledo OH                Tulsa OK

Portland OR           Philadelphia PA     Wakefield RI             Anderson SC

Rapid City SD         Nashville TN           San Antonio TX        Salt Lake City UT

Virginia Beach VA Plainfield VT           Spokane WA            Milwaukee WI

Princeton WV        Greybull WY

Notes: In the event of a tie we awarded it to the city with the smallest population. New York City, NY would have been the largest in NY except many people signed up by borough and we didn’t add all the boroughs together as one group.



The United States Freedom Army is concerned about continuous constitutional violations in the five areas listed in the attached flyer. These violations are listed in their relative order of importance and are so long running and egregious they can no longer be condoned. The flyer attached to this report delineates these grievances. You may use it to make copies and pass it out at any meetings, at the VFW Hall, post it on billboards, give it to friends, or whatever you may decide.

NOTE: On September 17 we will be passing out these flyers in Washington, D.C. We need as many people there as possible so we can reach as many people as possible in the three branches of our federal government. We need to know as soon as possible how many people will be at the Muster Point on September 17. If you cannot participate with us in Washington D.C. we will have other things for you to do in your local area on that day. See the section above “Cross Country March on Washington D.C.” for more updated information.

We realize that the information in the note above will disappoint some people but it is the best we can do at this point in time given all the circumstances. We want to do the best we can to achieve distribution of our flyer and make the feelings of everyone regarding the abuse of the United States Constitution known.

The flyer itself has a camouflage background and a gold stripe but it was designed so it can be copied in either color or black & white. When copied in black & white it loses the camouflage and gold stripe but is still effective and is very inexpensive to copy in black & white. The words are what count and the words are what we wish to communicate.




The website post this month will be about the Constitutional Freedom March. We want people who log on to the website to know that an event is taking place and to encourage them to enlist and participate.



We support all efforts by any organization to “resurrect” the United States Constitution. Whenever we hear about any effort to restore the Constitution we will record it here.



We are a group of people who want to see the United States Constitution followed and, by implication, this leviathan federal government dismantled. We intend to follow all laws and proceed peacefully to attempt to achieve this goal. This is the thrust of our effort at this time.

We are not at present a militia but circumstances in the future may alter that situation. What we do or become depends upon what occurs in Washington, D.C. and what occurs in D.C. may alter our goals and approach. Since we cannot see into the future it is not possible to say what may be required as time passes and events unfold.





                                       JOHN HANCOCK






September 4, 2014 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See, Political Corruption | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Outrage of the Week: Middle school curriculum is teaching that Americans don’t have the right to bear arms

By NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action

This week’s outrage comes to us from the state of Connecticut–the “Constitution State”–where  a father says his son’s middle school curriculum is teaching that Americans don’t have the right to bear arms.

According to a story, Steven Boibeaux’s son, a student a Northeast Middle School in Bristol, Conn., was given a social studies worksheet titled, “The Second Amendment Today.”  The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, claims that, “The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,” and that, “The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.”

If anyone had bothered to check, they would know that, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court historically ruled in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment does indeed ensure an individual the right to bear arms, as our founding fathers wrote and intended.

The worksheet also asserts that Second Amendment rights “are not extended to the individual citizens of the states, so a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.” That is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

The worksheet further concludes the Second Amendment “only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard”–a view that no Supreme Court justice endorsed in either case.

“I am appalled,” said Mr. Boibeaux.  “It sounds to me like they are trying to indoctrinate our kids.   I’m more than a little upset about this.  It’s not up to the teacher to determine what the Constitution means.”

The teacher also told the students that the Constitution is a “living document,” which, according to the worksheet, means “the interpretation changes to meet the needs of the times.”

“The judges and courts of each generation provide the interpretation of the document,” the worksheet states.

Mr. Boibeaux called that concept mind-boggling.  We call it outrageous.


Keep updated on gun legislation at the NRA-ILA website.

July 13, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WND by GARTH KANT (MY TWO SENSE: Does everyone remember when this information came out? The man in charge of buying weapons and bullets, at the Department of Homeland Security, is preparing for a race war. His agenda? To slaughter as many white people, around the world, as can be slaughtered. No comment has come from Obama, and his talking head, J. Earnest, claims the White House has no knowledge of the bullet-buyer or his website named, War is On the Horizon aka WOH. Happily, that blog is shut down, or so it seems, but it was only taken down after a much longer time than it took Obama to claim Trayvon Martin could have been his son! Most of us didn’t know about this person, or his agenda, but now that we do, what will this Administration do about his call for rioting and waring? Wasn’t the film maker of Innocence of Muslims accused and arrested relative to bogus evidence made up by this Administration? JM)


Obama admin stonewalling on big ammo buildup

Lawmaker: ‘They refuse to let us know what is going on’

Published: 18 hours ago

author-image by Garth Kant Email | Archive

rss feed Subscribe to feed

Garth Kant is a WND staff writer. Previously, he spent five years writing, copy-editing and producing at “CNN Headline News,” three years writing, copy-editing and training writers at MSNBC, and also served several local TV newsrooms as producer, executive producer and assistant news director. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook, “How to Write Television News.”More ↓


Members of Congress are demanding the Obama administration explain why it is stockpiling a huge arsenal of ammunition and weapons.

The Department of Homeland Security bought more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year, as well as thousands of armored vehicles.

Rep. Timothy Huelscamp, R-Kan., wants to know what DHS plans to do with all that firepower, but he can’t get an answer.

A reporter for We Are Change asked Huelscamp at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week why DHS needs weapons of war.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Huelscamp said.

“I’ve got a list of questions of various agencies about multiple things. Far from being the most transparent administration in the world, they are the most closed-nature, opaque and they refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t have an answer for that. And multiple members of Congress are asking those questions,” he added.

Huelscamp said he plans to apply pressure to get an answer: “It comes down to during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’s feet to the fire? We’re going to find out. I say we don’t fund them ’til we get an answer.”

Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., also wants answers, and WND has reported that he is demanding an explanation of DHS’s bullet buys from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

“I think Congress should ask the department about both of those issues, and I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done, and I have every confidence that the oversight committee … should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”

As WND reported, the Department of Homeland Security has argued that it is buying in bulk to save money, explaining it uses as many as 15 million rounds a year for training law enforcement agents.

But the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would be enough for more than 100 years of training, or, more ominously, enough to fight a war for more than 20 years. It would also be enough to shoot every American more than five times.

Forbes columnist Benko, who worked for two years in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division, doubts the government’s explanation.
“To claim that it’s to ‘get a low price’ for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant,” he writes.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she believes the federal government is building an arsenal to prepare for the day the country goes bankrupt. Last month, she wrote on her Facebook page: “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

The prospect of civil unrest puts a chilling spin on an ominous remark then-candidate Barack Obama made in a Colorado campaign speech in July 2008.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” said then-candidate Obama.

Even the far-left is worried by the feds’ growing power.

WND reported four days ago that Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, a left-wing “peace and social justice movement” known for its colorful marches and protests, told WABC host Aaron Klein the potential for the Obama administration to abuse its growing domestic police power is “extremely troubling.”

Klein asked Benjamin, author of “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control,” if she was concerned that military-style drones now authorized to fly over U.S. skies could be used against American citizens, the same question that prompted U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to filibuster in the Senate earlier this month.

“Very much so,” Benjamin replied. “We see a militarization of the U.S. police forces here in the United States, and it’s a very troubling tendency.”

Furthermore, Benjamin charged she was “upset” that liberal Democrats – who might question and fight the federal government’s growing police powers under a Republican administration – “have been very quiet when this is happening under Obama.”

Klein asked if concerns that federal agencies are buying for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year meant America is heading toward some sort of military-style control.

“I think the potential is there,” Benjamin replied, “and the fact that 10 years after 9/11 the U.S. is still keeping the American people in the state of fear about terrorism and using that to take billions and billions of our tax dollars to use to set up these kind of facilities and equip our local law-enforcement agencies with military equipment and potentially really be turning us into a society where Big Brother is watching us all the time, I think is extremely troubling.”

The astronomical growth in federal firepower comes at a time when Democratic lawmakers and President Obama are trying to reduce the availability of guns for American citizens, following the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

A law went into effect in the state of New York on Jan. 15 banning so-called assault weapons and limiting ammunition magazines to seven rounds.

Just yesterday, Colorado’s governor signed into law a measure expanding requirements for background checks and another putting a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.
Gun-rights supporters are fighting back in both states.

The National Rifle Association announced today that it has joined the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in a lawsuit challenging the New York law.

Sheriffs in Colorado are considering filing suit against that state’s new anti-gun laws.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and many other county sheriffs “won’t bother enforcing” the new laws, because it would be impossible to keep track of whether gun owners are meeting the new requirements.

He says the laws are “feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.”

As WND reported, similar sentiments have been expressed by Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and sheriffs in Missouri, California, Kansas, Montana and in dozens of counties in several states across the country.

Weld has joined the list of at least 340 sheriffs who have vowed to uphold the Constitution against gun-control measures that violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

The sheriffs’ push-back against the gun measures is significant because, “The bills are a model for what they’ll try to push in Congress,” said Independence Institute research director and Denver University law professor Dave Kopel.

“Colorado is a pawn for the Obama-Biden plan,” he added.

That plan is moving forward in Congress, although not even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could get Democrats to go along with banning “assault weapons.”

Earlier this week, Reid told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that her measure to ban those weapons would not be part of a sweeping bill restricting gun rights. She said Reid decided the ban had little chance of surviving a vote in the Senate.

Feinstein said she will be able to offer the ban as an amendment instead. But AP suggested that by pushing it back to that level, Senate leaders believe it will have a hard time passing.

Feinstein sponsored the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Her current proposal would have banned 157 different types of weapons and ammunition magazines.

All of these gun-control measures have some concerned about outright confiscation of guns.

WND reported three weeks ago that the City Council in Guntersville, Ala. proposed to give police officers the authority to “disarm individuals, if necessary,” during an emergency or crisis. The council quickly backed down after an outcry when the story hit the Internet.

Such blatant grabs for guns are not new in the U.S. Less than a year ago, the Second Amendment Foundation fought a court battle over a North Carolina regulation that banned firearms and ammunition outside the home during any declared emergency, and won.

A provision in a Washington-state gun-control bill that failed in the state House last week was so draconian that even its sponsors backtracked or denied any knowledge of it when they were confronted about it.

As Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat reported, the “Orwellian” measure would allow the county sheriff to inspect the homes of owners of so-called “assault weapons” to ensure the weapons were stored properly.

In the post-Newtown debate, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke speaks for many of the nation’s sheriffs in saying such firearms seizure plans are flat-out unconstitutional and they won’t enforce them.

Authorities confiscated firearms in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Thousands of weapons – legally obtained and owned – were simply grabbed from citizens after New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced, “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.”

In a series of videos, the NRA has documented the stunning weapons grab by police in New Orleans, assembling videos that show them physically taking weapons from individuals, including one woman who was stunned when officers threw her against her kitchen wall because she had a small handgun for self-defense.

The not-to-be-forgotten images, Part 1:

Part 2:

The police actions – many of the victims describe the gun confiscation as out-and-out theft – left New Orleans’ residents, who had been prepared to stand their ground and defend themselves from thugs and looters running amok, completely defenseless.

WND reported this week a new poll indicated only one in five gun owners would be willing to give up their firearms if the government demanded it.

“In other words, the government has a huge fight on its hands if it tries to implement a gun confiscation program,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies.

Nearly half of the nation’s households have at least one gun, according to a 2011 Gallup poll. The 2010 U.S. Census counted nearly 115 million households. Since President Obama took office in 2009, more than 65 million background checks have been conducted on gun purchases.

The push to limit the gun-rights of citizens comes as the federal government seeks to expand both its firepower and its reach. WND has reported on growing federal police power across dozens of government agencies for more than a decade and a half.

In 1997, WND exposed the fact that 60,000 federal agents were enforcing more than 3,000 criminal laws. The report prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark: “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”

Also in 1997, as part of an ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.

WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of paperwork.

WND further reported a plan by then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen in dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.

In 1999, Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the Founding Fathers had nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.

Also in 1999, WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.

In 2000, WND CEO Joseph Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”

A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.

In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”


March 22, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Veteran stands up for 2nd Amendment at Chicago anti-gun forum

Posted by    Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 12:56pm

After enduring hours of derision and mockery by the panelists at a Chicago-area guns “forum” Sunday, one man in the audience stood up and addressed the crowd, identified himself as a veteran, and proceeded to give a straightforward but passionate defense of his support for the First and Second Amendments.

The forum, despite having been marketed by the organizers from the New Trier Democrats as a “space for real conversation,” had until then allowed for anything but discussion.

Countless snide remarks and dubious facts were placed on powerpoint slides as the audience, largely filled with NRA supporters, were repeatedly “shushed” and told to write any questions down for a later Q&A.

Still, as time went on, and especially after speaker Bill Jenkins placed a photograph of Nazi paraphernalia on the screen with the caption, “this is what a gun show looks like,” and after he had put a picture of a chihuahua with the words “this is what I think the NRA really is” up, the crowd had nearly had it.

Finally, when panelist Lee Goodman of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition responded to a question about the original reasons for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights by saying “it didn’t matter [what their intentions were],” it was enough for the combat veteran to speak up:

The exchange:

Veteran: Sir, sir. While you’re standing up. I’ve sat here [inaudible] and I’d like to agree with the professor. Everyone standing in this room right now, especially the veterans in the room right now, know, that we are all Americans. The problem with this country right now is it’s us and it’s f***ing them. We need to stop this crap.

Now, the thing I would like you to answer, sir. And I did go to war for this country. Whether it was for everyone in here’s ability to have oil and gas in their cars, or the banks, or whatever. I went to war for my country.

And I went to war for your ability to have the First Amendment, to say what you stood up there and said today, to write what you want to write in your newspaper, and have whatever opinion you want to have. You can practice whatever religious freedoms you want. I would like you to answer the question, since you just said that one of the rights that I went to war over to defend, that is inalienable, to every American citizen. If this discussion was going on, about your First Amendment rights, would you still have the same opinion that we don’t need that any more either.

Goodman: You didn’t hear my answer….that’s not what I said…I said it doesn’t matter what their reasons are, what matters is whether or not it’s relevant today.

Audience member: It’s an eternal truth, an eternal truth….

Goodman: When they consider any part of the Constitution, any law, they’re going to say, “what does it mean today?”

Audience: NO!

Veteran: The threat of tyranny, today, is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700!

Reporter Kathy Routliffe of the Wilmette Life described the event as a “raucous afternoon of anti-gun control activists heckling and jeering at panelists.” If only Routliffe had chosen to provide her readers with the panelists’ inflammatory remarks that led up to the combat veteran’s speech.

(WAJ adds — The image above reminds me of Norman Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech painting)



Listen to This Veteran’s Epic Defense of the Second Amendment at Chicago Anti-Gun Forum: ‘I Went to War for My Country’

Jan. 22, 2013 5:41pm

Listen to This Veterans Epic Defense of the Second Amendment at Chicago Anti Gun Forum


A military veteran delivered a passionate defense of the Second Amendment at a Chicago-area anti-gun “forum” Sunday, saying he went to war to protect all Americans’ inalienable rights — including the right to bear arms. He also argued the threat of “tyranny” is still just as real as it was in the past.

The veteran, along with several other NRA supporters, were reportedly forced to listen to panelists bash the Second Amendment and question whether or not the right to bear arms is still relevant in today’s society.

“About two-thirds of the audience sported Illinois State Rifle Association or National Rifle Association hats or tee-shirts. Many held up “Don’t Infringe My Rights” signs. Many photographed the crowd and speakers with phones and cameras,” according to the Wilmette Sun Times.

One of the speakers at the event, identified as Bill Jenkins, even went as far as to place a photograph of Nazi paraphernalia on the screen with the caption, “this is what a gun show looks like,” followed by a picture of a Chihuahua with the caption “this is what I think the NRA really is.” Critics of the NRA have gotten into a habit of comparing the NRA to Nazis.

“Finally, when panelist Lee Goodman of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition responded to a question about the original reasons for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights by saying ‘it didn’t matter [what their intentions were],’ it was enough for the combat veteran to speak up,” Legal Insurrection notes.

To read the full transcript, click here.

“When they consider any part of the Constitution, any law, they’re going to say, ‘what does it mean today?’” Goodman defended.

To that, the veteran shot back, “The threat of tyranny is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700.”

January 23, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Reload: Second Amendment Rallies Highlight Conservative Potential in Obama’s Second Term

 by Joel B. Pollak 20 Jan 2013

Thousands rallied across the nation yesterday in support of Second Amendment rights, and conservatives were reminded that Barack Obama’s second term presents a unique opportunity to rebuild. Our principles of individual liberty and constitutional government may be a minority creed, but they are still the best principles to have. Even liberals find them compelling–when they are not hypnotized by the Obama cult of personality.

The conservative movement should aim high. Its long-term political goal should be to achieve what Republicans never have done, and Democrats have enjoyed several times: a filibuster-proof majority. The only way to restore the nation’s original constitutional vision, and to renew its rapid economic growth and global leadership, is to push those changes through. The left is not shy about coveting such power; neither should we be.

Pursuing that political goal means moving beyond the political realm, and laying the cultural foundations for a conservative revival. And doing so begins with listening–understanding the nation we are becoming, finding new sources of inspiration in our present as well as our past. Our task is to find the best ideas and best narratives, and amplify them using the best new media–in which we must invest, and innovate.

In the medium term, the task of conservatism is to resist the changes that Barack Obama and the Democrats seek to impose on our society. We must understand that Obama is not looking for compromise. He is seeking to change the boundaries of what is politically possible, even though much of what he wishes to do is only desired by a small minority of the American people. He must be stopped–and he can be stopped.

The key is unity. Obama’s strategy since losing the 2010 midterm elections has been to divide Republicans. And he has succeeded in doing so, several times, on fiscal issues. But when the party is united in opposition, the President cannot win. Republicans have often been maligned as the “party of no,” but it is precisely to say “no” that Republicans were elected. The key is finding the issues on which the party can say “no” in unison.

On some issues, “no” can be absolute. No to tax hikes, which were only passed under duress in the “fiscal cliff” fiasco. No to new stimulus spending, which Obama continues to demand. No to foreign aid to governments that treat the United States as an enemy.

On other issues, “no” should be combined with “unless”–clear conditions that articulate GOP priorities, and that highlight the deficiencies of the president and his party.

So, for example, no debt ceiling increase unless the Senate passes a budget–and no budget that does not aim at eventual balance, through cuts and entitlement reform. No immigration reform without border security and law enforcement. No new background checks for guns until Obama comes clean on his own gun-running in Fast and Furious. No steps on climate change–such as a carbon tax–without matching reductions in the payroll tax.

Republicans cannot govern from one house, nor is Obama interested in co-governing in the way the Framers intended. But Republicans can oppose from one house, and even both at times, effectively as well as constructively, if they choose to fight from positions on which conservatives and moderates are united. That is the key to holding the House through the end of Obama’s second term–and perhaps, winning the Senate in 2014.

One final element is missing, and that is leadership. The country lacks it, badly, and the conservative movement has failed to provide leadership that lasts. Too often, our discussion of leadership is reduced to handicapping presidential candidates, who are then targeted and tarnished by the media, one by one. Leadership is far bigger than that: it is a quality to be cultivated among activists at every level–not just those running for public office.

The most important thing to learn from Obama’s perpetual campaigns is the effort and energy they devote to training individual leaders, who function as a movement not only outside the election season but outside the Democratic Party.

The Tea Party revealed the potential for similar–and better–organizing among conservatives, and hinted at the immense creative potential that remains largely untapped. There is no time to waste.

January 21, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Is Another Civil War on the Horizon?

lightly edited by Just Me

civil war

A pretty, young, auburn-haired woman – mid-20s – drove down a lonely country road somewhere in Oklahoma. Appearing in her rear-view mirror, at the back windshield, were two menacing orbs of light floating amid ashen dusk. The guttural roar of a souped-up big block shook the tiny Volkswagen Rabbit as a van-load of inbred thugs lurched left and drew alongside her. A ponytailed passenger taunted inaudibly and blew foul kisses between crude hand gestures. He pointed for her to pull over as the van repeatedly swerved dangerously close.

Inside the car a man, asleep in the reclining passenger seat, was startled awake by the commotion. He rose and darted his head about, calmly assessing the situation. This only spurred the evil-bent goons.

As they ramped-up efforts to run the car off the road, the man reached in the glove box, withdrew a military-grade, semi-automatic handgun – an “assault weapon,” if you will – and, with intentionality and great theatre, leaned across his young bride, pointing the gun out the open bay and directly between dirt bag’s booze-flushed eyes.

Van vanished amid a plume of gray smoke as wheels locked, tires screeched and “assault vehicle” fishtailed – jerking to a halt with taillights aglow skyward from the ditch.

Not a shot was fired.

Back at the couple’s rural farmhouse, two boys – boys who would not be orphaned that night – played. We most likely played – my brother Pete and I – with assault rifles fashioned from sticks. I always love to hear Dad retell the story. He does it with an ornery, satisfied grin. “No one’s taking my guns,” he’ll say.

This might be a good time for me to add that no one’s taking my guns either. Period. And if Dianne Feinstein orders me from her lofty perch on the left-coast to retroactively register them with some federal autocracy, I think I might just forget I even have them. Tens of millions of law-abiding, God-fearing Americans just like me and Dad, I suspect, feel the same way.

I love guns. Grew up with ‘em. As a former police officer with 12 years in the U.S. military, I know how to use them, too – use them well. I plan to buy more – a bunch more. In fact, who’s to say I don’t already have a veritable arsenal?

Point is, tain’t Big Brother Barack’s nor any other candy-keistered-liberal-cream-puff’s bloody business whether I do or not.

See, the left’s totalitarian brand of “gun control” has nothing to do with controlling guns – or bad guys. Rather, it has everything to do with controlling – disarming – the law-abiding masses. It’s not about protecting the innocents. It’s about rendering the innocents defenseless.

Clichés become clichés for a reason, and the old cliché, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” rings as true today as it did whenever it was that some homespun fellow coined it.

I was disgusted – physically sickened, in fact – when Barack Obama, president of these Divided States of America, shamelessly exploited the Sandy Hook memorial service to lay the groundwork for his unconstitutional gun-confiscation scheme. It was slimy to the extreme.

I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised. That’s what liberals do. Every time some evil nut-job – pumped full of psychotropic drugs by NEA members who don’t want to deal with them – shoots-up the place, the left’s collective mouth begins to water.

“Now, finally, now!” they say, rubbing together soft hands that have never felt the surprising weight of a Sig Sauer 45. “This time we have the political momentum for sweeping gun control. This time the American people will roll over and let us trample the Second Amendment beneath jackbooted executive order or congressional fiat.”

“Let no good crisis go to waste,” right, Rahm (Emmanuel)?

Well, not so fast, cupcake. As the U.S. Constitution guarantees – and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It ain’t, “should not be infringed,” or “shall finally be infringed once ‘progressives’ have assumed total dominance.”

No, “shall not” means shall not.

There’s only one way to take my guns, slick, and that’s through a constitutional amendment – an amendment that will never happen – ever. Try it any other way and we have a problem.

And this whole “assault weapons ban” angle? Sensationalist propaganda. I prefer to call them “defense weapons.” Contrary to left-wing revisionist pabulum, the Second Amendment’s not about squirrel hunting.

Notice a trend here? What do Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora Colorado’s Century 16 theatre and Columbine have in common? They’re all “gun free zones.”

Places you don’t see mass murder and mayhem? Well, there’s a reason bad guys largely avoid shooting-up gun shows, ranges, households with signs that say: “This home insured by Smith & Wesson” and Texas in general. It’s because they know – even while thick-skulled, liberals don’t – that, as recently noted by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Oh, that rather than “gun free zone,” Sandy Hook had a sign reading: “Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempts to harm those herein will be met with deadly force.” Might some of those beautiful babies have still died if the P.E. coach and four MP5-bearing teachers had ended the bloodshed soon after it began? Perhaps. But how many precious lives could have been saved?

No, you won’t disarm me. You’re not going to neuter my household and tear away my ability to defend my wife and precious babies like Dad did all those years ago.

I really, really hope this president and his authoritarian cohorts in Congress will slow down, take a deep breath and realize that, right now, they’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken. If they try what I think they might, but hope they don’t, I fear this nation – already on the precipice of widespread civil unrest and economic disaster – might finally spiral into utter chaos and into a second civil war.

But then again, that may be exactly what they have in mind.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

Read more:



An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control

January 14, 2013 by

An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control


Dear ______________:

I realize it is customary to begin missives to elected representatives with the words Honorable Senator ______________ or Honorable Representative ______________, but I believe that title must be earned. Frankly, you (I am referring to you individually and to Congress as a whole) have not done so and, therefore, do not deserve to be addressed that way. However, the purpose of this letter is not to criticize you, but to inform you about what is happening in the country you were elected to serve.

According to a recent poll, Congress’ favorability ranks below lice, cockroaches, colonoscopies and root canals. Have you for a moment stopped to wonder why? It’s because a vast majority of Americans believe that Congress no longer represents them, but instead represents big corporations and, mostly, themselves and their cronies. The recent “fiscal cliff” deal is a perfect example. It socked a tax increase on 80 percent of American workers while doling out $76 billion in government money (which means my money) through special tax favors to large corporations, such as General Electric, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and DIAGEO, and to Hollywood and green energy companies. According to a recent column in The Washington Examiner, Senator Max Baucus’ (Fascist-Mont.) former staffers who are now lobbyists all got their clients millions of dollars in special benefits from the fiscal cliff deal. In return, Baucus received thousands of dollars in political contributions from those companies’ political action committees. Americans, myself included, believe this is standard operating procedure in Washington, D.C. And there is talk that additional tax increases on the middle class are on the way.

Upon your inauguration, you swore an oath, with your hand on a Bible, to uphold and defend the Constitution. You have repeatedly violated that oath by passing unConstitutional laws like the USA Patriot Act (and subsequent extensions) and the National Defense Authorization Act, which grants the President the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens and suspends habeas corpus. If I’m not mistaken, these unConstitutional laws contain provisions that in some way violate Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. That’s quite a feat for two laws.

We live in a Nation that goes far beyond anything George Orwell imagined in 1984. Our emails are read, our conversations are listened to, our cars have tracking devices and there are cameras everywhere watching our every move. Law enforcement has devices that can look through our clothes and into our cars and homes, and surveillance drones are patrolling our skies. Travelers are treated as criminals who must be strip searched or patted down before being allowed to fly — and sometimes before being allowed to board trains or buses. Many of us feel this is tyranny.

Now, in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is a great hue and cry among the elected class and the mainstream media about guns and gun violence. To hear them tell it, every gun owner in America is a potential mass murderer, especially those who happen to own a sporting rifle. You and I know that is balderdash.

The anti-gun lobby loves to pull out figures and statistics that it claims show that America is the most violent place on the planet, saying that if guns were simply banned, America would be a crime-free utopia. Let me give you some real statistics. Yes, the recent shootings at Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colo., were tragic and senseless. Do you know what their common denominators are? Both occurred in so-called “gun-free zones.” That means the shooters who made conscious choices to disregard our laws were able to freely attack a group of adults who were restricted by their desire to obey our laws from defending themselves and the children in their charge. Both shooters, as is the case with the vast majority of recent mass shooters, were on prescription psychotropic drugs prior to the attacks.

According to FBI crime data from 2011, rifles (of which the misnamed “assault rifle” is a subset) were used in only 323 of 8,583 firearms murders. This is a continuation of a long-established trend in which the rifle is the least-used of all firearm weapons involved in murders. Rifle use as a murder weapon even ranks below knives, blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) and hands and feet.

In other words, rifles of all types kill less than one person per day. And fewer than 100 people are killed each year by rifles with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. According to, from 1982 through 2012 sporting rifles have been employed in mass shootings 35 times. They were used only three times in 2012. In those three attacks, 52 people died. Since the Sandy Hook shooting on Dec. 14, 40 juveniles (statistically speaking) have died in shootings using a weapon other than a sporting rifle. THAT’S JUST ONE MONTH.

Meanwhile, according to Childhelp, more than five children each day — or more than 1,825 per year — are killed by parental abuse. I realize that thinking about the 20 children gunned down by a drug-addled, mentally unstable man is gut-wrenching. But since the Sandy Hook shooting, about 10 times as many children have died at the hands of their parents, and almost twice as many have been killed in juvenile gang crimes. Why don’t these seem to concern you? Could it be because the media are not interested in talking about it and it won’t get you the “face time” you desire? Why aren’t you addressing the topic of the widespread administration of psychotropic drugs and their common link to mass shootings? Is it because you stand to lose political contributions from the medical-industrial complex?

Gun grabbers love to hold Great Britain up as a model of what happens when guns are banned. Well, let’s compare U.S. and U.K. crime statistics. Britain is the most violent country in the European Union. Since the imposition of the country’s gun ban following the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, recorded violent attacks have soared by 77 percent. The violent crime rate there is 2,034 per 100,000 residents.

Contrast that with the United States, which has a violent crime rate of only 386.3 per 100,000. That’s about one-fifth the rate of violent crime in the U.K. And this has trended down since the ban on “assault weapons” ended in 2004.

In the U.K., the weapon of choice to use in a violent crime is the knife. In 2006, there was one knife crime committed in Britain for every 374 people. In the U.S. in 2006, there was one gun crime for every 750 people. In other words, a person was twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the U.K. as he was a gun crime in the United States.

What about guns? The media frenzy that followed the Dunblane massacre led the British government to pass the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Handgun owners were required to turn their guns over to the government, and those who sought to follow the law did so. But the Act didn’t end mass shootings. Another one occurred in 2010. However, within 10 years after the gun ban was enacted, gun crimes had almost doubled. British police are now arming themselves in response to armed gangs. Meanwhile, British citizens are helpless against attacks by criminals wielding knives, clubs, rocks, ropes, chains, axes and anything else that can be used as a weapon.

It also did not have the effect of ending gun crimes. From April 2010 through March 2011, there were 60 shooting homicides in the U.K., despite an almost complete ban on guns. And the number of annual shootings continues to increase.

What the law has done is make criminals out of law-abiding citizens, as in the case of Paul Clarke, a taxi driver who found a shotgun in his yard and turned it into the police only to be arrested for possessing it, and Iraq War veteran Danny Nightingale, who was given a Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had trained. That gun was packed in his bags by colleagues when he left Iraq to bury two friends who were killed in action. When the gun was located, Nightingale was forced to plead guilty to possessing it in order to avoid a five-year sentence.

Since the “assault weapons” ban in the United States ended in 2004, gun crimes in the United States have decreased. Not only that, but according to statistics by the Department of Justice, as the number of guns per 1,000 U.S. citizens has increased, the number of serious violent crimes per 1 million population has dropped.

Now to the mood of the country. Americans have been pushed and pushed until they are near the brink. Much of the blame for their anger falls on a government that is out of touch with middle America and tone deaf to its pleas. Most Americans see Congresses past and present inserting fingers into every aspect of daily life: whether it’s the amount of water that can pass through a toilet or the type of light bulb can be used or how much ethanol has to be in gasoline or how one can use his own property or what type of health insurance he must pay for. Now comes the threat that law-abiding Americans will have to surrender their guns — which Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (Communist-Calif.) proposed bill will require — and be restricted from purchasing a gun simply because it looks frightening, carries a high-capacity magazine and a bunch of pointed-headed, intellectual, overeducated elitists have decided it is not “needed” for hunting. And banning large capacity magazines is attacking a problem that is statistically insigificant.

The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights — as were all the first 10 Amendments — to restrict what government can do. It was designed to ensure that Americans could deter or, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government — you know, the type of government that Representative Jerrold Nadler (Communist-N.Y.) would institute because he believes, as he told a reporter recently, “that the state should have a monopoly on legitimate violence.” When the state has “a monopoly on legitimate violence,” Americans are no longer citizens; they are subjects. Americans will not become subjects.

The 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to ensure Americans could hunt or defend themselves against criminals, so the argument that we “don’t need” guns with “large capacity clips (sic)” — by the way, the proper word is magazines — is a non sequitur. How do I know this? Here are the words of some of our Founding Fathers:

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

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, –who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them… — George Mason, The Virginia Ratifying Convention

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry

Despite what you and those of your ilk seem to believe, it is not the job of Congress or the President to decide what Americans “need” or for what purpose. Americans are quite capable of deciding that for themselves. Nowhere does the Constitution give you the authority to legislate weapons in any way. Nor does the President have this authority, as all laws are to come from the legislative branch, per Article 1, Section 8.

Many, if not most, Americans feel there are already ample gun laws in place. In fact, an argument can be made that many if not all current gun laws violate the Constitution — not that unConstitutional laws seem to bother you people. But I can assure you that, should a bill be passed by Congress and signed by the President that in any way approaches the one being proposed by Feinstein, there will be blood in the streets once Federal agents begin knocking on doors of gun owners to fingerprint and register them. Feinstein’s proposed bill makes many weapons non-transferable, which is the equivalent of weapons confiscation. This will be resisted, as will registration and fingerprinting of gun owners.

And you can tell the President that any executive orders that infringes on the 2nd Amendment will also be ignored and resisted. You see, your passage of laws — or executive orders or whatever you want to call them — that are unConstitutional do not make them any less unConstitutional. Nor does consent to those unConstitutional laws by the Supreme Court give them validity.

Our rights come from our Creator, not government. Therefore, government cannot take them away.

In closing, I want to urge you to consider at great length what you will be starting if, in response to a senseless criminal act, you pass additional burdensome laws on people who have no desire nor inclination to commit criminal acts with the firearms they own — laws that would not reduce gun crime or prevent future Sandy Hook-style massacres but would only add burden and expense to lawful, legitimate gun owners. Gun crimes are committed by criminals. Criminals are criminals because they choose to ignore the laws. Writing additional laws will not serve as a deterrent.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by gang bangers and criminals, many of whom are prohibited from possessing a gun under current laws. For the most part, they obtain their guns illegally: either on the black market or by theft. Those committing gun crimes with legitimately purchased weapons are rare outliers.

As proven in Great Britain and Australia, additional gun control laws will neither end nor deter those with criminal intent from committing criminal acts. They will serve only to put the law-abiding public in further danger. That danger will come from two places: the criminal class that will see undefended citizens as easy targets and the Federal agents who will be tasked with enforcing unConstitutional laws.

But those Federal agents tasked to register and/or confiscate weapons will be putting themselves at risk as well, and any violence that results will be on your hands. The threat of arrest or death will cause some to give up their arms peaceably. But as was the case on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord when the British came to confiscate arms and weapons, there will be many patriots who rise up to resist this usurpation. I have spoken to a number of current and former members of the U.S. military who say they will be a part of that resistance group. These are people who have already shown a willingness to die in order to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

I pray to God that you enter into any gun control negotiations prayerfully and with a full understanding of the mood of the country. You have been warned.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Livingston

January 15, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment




‘No ma’am’: Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral

January 1, 2013 By

no ma'am, US MarineThe following open letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,”  was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.

CNN PRODUCER NOTE: joshdb50 was a Marine and was deployed to Afghanistan between the years of 2004 through 2005. Although he is no longer in the military he acknowledges that he owns gun. He says he does not believe the government needs to know what guns he owns because he believes registration would lead to confiscation. He says the laws that are in place for gun control are plenty, and adding more laws will remove a means of defense for people. ‘I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind’s shortcomings instead of pretending like they don’t exist. There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family,’ he said.
– Jareen, CNN iReport producer

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps

Breitbart’s Warner Todd Huston reached out to the retired Corporal and asked him what motivated him to write the open letter . The following is an excerpt from the published interview:

Warner Todd Huston: What drove you to post this reply to Senator Feinstein?

Joshua Boston: I’ve been seeing this nonsense about gun control in the news since forever. Senator Feinstein regularly touts the effectiveness of the first Assault Weapons Ban while pointing out the “loopholes.” So she proposes this new ban legislation. Given the tragedy that happened recently it has considerably more traction with folks, most who rely in some major way on emotions and what they’re being told by the media about these “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” My Windham Weaponry SRC sits in my home loaded and ready to be used should the need ever arise. It does not make me a criminal.

I’m sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It’s hypocritical.

WTH: In your opinion, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?

JB: Looking at the founder’s times and what they had just gone through, it was something they put in there for us should we ever find ourselves in their shoes and have to reassert, because of whatever manifestation of tyranny, our inherent right to freedom and liberty.


January 1, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Armed Citizen Saves Cop’s Life

Read more:

Sgt. Steven Means of the Early Police Department in Texas, is one law enforcement officer that is thankful for the Second Amendment right for citizens to bear arms.

Early is a small community in central Texas with a population of just under 3,000. Back in August of this year, several residents of the Peach House RV Park got into a squabble.  Seems one of the residents, 58 year old Charles Conner took issue to his neighbors’ dogs doing their business in his yard.

On that hot summer day, Conner got into an argument with 58 year old David House, one of the dog owners.  Conner eventually left the argument and went to his RV only to return with a gun that he used to shoot House dead with.  Hearing the gun shots, the other dog owner, 53 year old Valentina Calaci ran from her RV screaming.  That’s when Conner turned and shot her dead also.

In his fit of rage, Conner then turned and shot both the dogs that he felt started the whole confrontation.

Shortly thereafter, Sgt. Means responded to the shots fired call.  The moment he got out of his car, Conner opened fire on him and then took cover behind a large tree.  Means tried to return fire with his AR-15, but Conner had the better position.

Hearing all the gunfire outside, another resident of the RV park, Vic Stacy, looked to see what was happening.  When he saw that Conner had the better position, he felt that the officer’s life was in jeopardy.  Having a clear side view, he decided he needed to help the officer, so he took a shot from his vantage point and hit Conner in the thigh.  Although wounded, Conner was not giving up, so Stacy shot him again.  Sgt. Means was also able to get some shots off and eventually Conner was killed and the officer’s life was saved.

After other officers arrived at the scene and investigated what happened, they deemed Stacy to be the hero.  Brown County Sheriff Booby Grubbs commented, saying:

“The citizen that fired these shots did a tremendous job out there. Had he not had a gun and the presence of mind to do this, we don’t know what the outcome would’ve been.”

This is just one of hundreds of cases where legally armed citizens have used their guns to protect themselves, their families and others.  In this case, it was a police officer whose life was saved by an armed citizen.  Tomorrow, it could be you or one of your loved ones, that is if Obama doesn’t steal them all away from us.

Read more:


December 21, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Does the Second Amendment Only Apply to State Militias? Liberals Are Making the Case — But We Look at the Evidence

Liberals Say Second Amendment, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only Applies to Militias, Supreme Court Disagrees

Whenever the subject of gun control comes up, supporters of the practice (generally of the liberal persuasion) inevitably run up against one major roadblock to pushing sweeping laws — specifically, the United States constitution, and its second amendment, which protects a sweeping right to keep and bear arms.

Thus, experts have read the amendment in a way that hasn’t banned the ownership of weapons altogether. This reading has only been strengthened by recent Supreme Court cases such as District of Columbia vs. Heller, and McDonald vs. Chicago, which have codified the right to keep and bear arms as being as important as other rights such as the right to free speech.

Undoubtedly, this is frustrating to many opponents of gun rights, since even in moments of widely felt national tragedy like the present moment, their agenda requires a constitutional justification as well as a political one – a fact that puts them at a permanent disadvantage relative to gun rights supporters.

Which is why opponents of gun rights have seized on a well-worn constitutional argument in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary. That argument – an old chestnut of the anti-gun community – is that the second amendment doesn’t actually grant every American a right to keep and bear arms, and is in fact obsolete because it only applies to members of state militias. This argument focuses on what legal scholars call the prefatory clause of the second amendment, bolded below for emphasis:

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.

So since the amendment itself mentions the maintenance of “well regulated” militias as the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, the argument goes, gun control is perfectly permissible so long as it only targets private citizens and not state militias. In fact, the liberal Daily Beast published an article on Tuesday making this exact argument.

The Argument for “Militia-Only” Gun Ownership

So well-worn is this argument that Justice John Paul Stevens used it in his dissent in District of Columbia vs. Heller ​(emphasis added):

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

As did Justice Stephen Breyer in the same case (emphasis added):

 The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

Of these two Justices, Breyer remains on the court, and would presumably be all too happy to resurrect this argument to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. So at the level of legal strategy, it is easy to see where this argument – that the Second Amendment is much narrower in scope than a generalized right to bear arms – might be appealing.

Liberals Say Second Amendment, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only Applies to Militias, Supreme Court Disagrees

Illinois gun owners and supporters file out NRA applications while participating in an Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day convention before marching to the Illinois State Capitol Wednesday, March 7, 2012 in Springfield, Ill. Credit: AP

The Argument Against the Liberal Interpretation

But does this interpretation actually follow from the text? Certainly, the majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, does not find this reasoning persuasive (emphasis added):

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

Scalia’s reasoning is fairly easy to understand. That is, simply saying why a right is necessary to protect before claiming that it is a right does not obviate the existence of the right once that reason ceases to be in effect.

For instance, one can imagine the founders drafting the First Amendment’s protection of “freedom of the press” in order to protect the distribution of anonymously authored pamphlets, or to allow people to use privately purchased printing presses. Yet if the first amendment were phrased, “A robust distribution of political pamphlets being necessary to the maintenance of a free society, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” would anyone seriously argue that such a right would not cover laser printing or online news organizations? Certainly, Justice Scalia (who has found that the first amendment covers things the founders never could have imagined, such as video games) would not accept such an interpretation.

Yet still, legal scholars argue over the meaning of the text. Christiane Amanpour’s show on CNN featured a segment recently on this very topic:

The Context

So what’s the reality of the argument?

The answer  varies depending on whether one is talking about historical or legal reality. Historically, the question of what the Second Amendment is supposed to mean is almost certainly never going to be solved, because conflicting sources exist on both sides of the issue, and conflicting interpretations of those sources have already proliferated. The reason for this is partially that the gulf between militias and ordinary people was not nearly so large in 1790 as it is now, and partially because arguably the most obvious original purpose of the Second Amendment (giving citizens the means to resist the government by force) would be impossible to fulfill without extending gun rights far beyond what even their most friendly supporters would allow. In short, like the homemade printing press example above, the reasons the amendment was originally ratified are difficult to translate to a modern context.

However, in terms of the present legal regime, the answer to how the Second Amendment is likely to be interpreted for the foreseeable future is fairly easy to answer.

Legal Reality

For now, at least, the legal reality regarding the Second Amendment is that it does guarantee a right to keep and bear arms of some kind to individual citizens. Barring a massive shift in power on the court, this is unlikely to change, as five of the sitting justices voted to hold that the right exists and protects citizens against both state and federal law in the two cases cited above.

Moreover, even cases that the majority of justice disagree with are not always changed after the fact, given the varying attitudes of various jurists towards the importance of upholding precedent. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is a fixed reality of the American legal and constitutional landscape.

However, in practice, this tells us very little about how far that right extends, which is where the current (and future) legal debate is likely to focus. A right to own a handgun is one thing, after all, but what about the right to own rocket launchers? Miniguns? Anti-tank ordinance? An actual, physical tank? Are all of these things protected by the right to keep and bear arms? They are, after all, arms.

Fortunately for those worrying about their neighbors acquiring weapons grade helicopters, even the most stringent supporters of gun rights admit that the law allows for limits on what sort of weapons are protected, or on how those weapons might be obtained. For his part, Scalia would limit the amendment solely to weapons that can be carried by an individual human being, knocking such armaments as tanks and missiles out of contention, and admitted in the majority decision in Heller that regulations such as background checks and concealed carry permits almost certainly pass constitutional muster (emphasis added):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

This leaves gun control advocates with some degree of leeway legally in terms of what they can do to control access to weapons. For instance, it is possible to interpret that the Constitution permits bans on certain types of magazines, and given that the court has declined to invalidate a previous assault weapons ban, this too would be possible.

Is There a Bigger Issue Than Guns?

What is less clear is whether these policies would have the desire effect of stopping incidents like Sandy Hook from happening. The Daily Beast’s Megan McArdle has already written a lengthy post explaining why this is almost certainly not the case (emphasis added):

You can, to be sure, name one or two things that might make a marginal difference: ban extended-capacity magazines, and require background checks for private sales.  As a proponent of reasonable gun control that in some ways goes farther than current rules (I’d like to require that people pass a shooting and gun safety test before they can own a gun), these rules don’t strike me as crazy.

But we are back to generic solutions. These “reasonable controls” would not, in fact, have done much to stop the horror at Newtown; Lanza’s problem was not that he didn’t know the four rules of gun safety, or that his aim was bad. And Lanza didn’t buy the guns, so a background check would not have stopped him.

Could we go bigger?  Should we ban the relatives of anxious sad sacks from buying guns?  How about family friends? (Michael Carneal broke into a friend’s house while they were away for Thanksgiving and stole the guns he used to shoot up his Kentucky school.)  The question answers itself; the kind of all-knowing surveillance regime that this would require would be both impossible, and intolerable.

Reducing the magazine sizes seems modesly more promising, but only modestly. It takes a few minutes of practicing to learn how to change a magzine in a few seconds.  Even if you banned magazines, forcing people to load the gun itself, people could just carry more guns; spree shooters seem to show up, as Lanza did, with more guns and ammunition than they actually need.  In this specific case, it might well not have helped at all. Would Lanza really have been gang-rushed by fast-thinking primary school students if he stopped to reload?

Indeed, McArdle concludes, the only policy that would absolutely stop this sort of thing would be to ban all guns, categorically. And that is both politically and constitutionally impossible, and in all likelihood will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, it is not clear that guns are the issue so much as mental health is. In writing this article, we reached out to the National Rifle Association for comment, and while they declined, they did suggest David Kopel of the University of Denver as a source to talk over the constitutional niceties of this question. Dr. Kopel did not respond to a request for comment, but as it happens, he did publish a Wall Street Journal op ed on this topic recently, which we excerpt below (emphasis added):

 Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend “gun-free zones,” such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch’s study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up.[…]

Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.

People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.

So while the law may permit many different remedies that involve the restriction of access to guns (while staying well shy of the “Second Amendment is inoperable because of militias” theory), these remedies may not be the correct ones, according to some critics. As to what remedies would be correct, that is a topic more thorny than even the question of the original meaning of the Second Amendment, and therefore possibly beyond the powers of even the most brilliant court to solve.

December 19, 2012 Posted by | Home, Must See, The United States of America Constitution, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


John Lott

John Lott (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


MY TWO SENSE 12-16-12


The recent tragedy, in Connecticut, has us all saddened by the actions of a killer.  We are stunned and shocked, and we are wondering why this kind of thing continues to happen.  It seems that instances of mass murder, within this year, has increased in both number of victims, as well as in the number of times.  In my sixty-four years, I have lived through several events of mass murder and serial killings, but never, and not until this current year have I seen so many killers slaughtering more innocent people, in a very short period of time, in between one event and the next.  In fact, according to Mother Jones, “The horrific mass murder at a movie theater in Colorado on July 20, another at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on August 5, another at a manufacturer in Minneapolis on September 27—and now the unthinkable nightmare at a Connecticut elementary school on December 14—are the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades.  (Actually, the “epidemic” was not an epidemic until the last four years.  Make of that what you will.)

What is seen here repeatedly is that the relationship between murders and gun ownership, or gun control, is not cut-and-dried. Not only are statistics collected differently, but also some numbers are greatly affected by suicide, which most everyone agrees is not related to gun ownership (neither globally nor regionally) though obviously an issue for individuals with susceptible people in their homes.


The truth is that neither gun ownership NOR gun control shows a statistically meaningful correlation.  Murder rates aren’t about guns.  They are about poverty, immigration, racial conflict, mental illness, etc.  The US has high crimes rates in the poorest areas, and we have a constant inflow of poor immigrants who are often more likely to be embroiled in conflict.  Some immigration cultures do not put the same value on human life as Americans do.


Within the US, though, you can find some correlations and meaningful numbers, but not in the way you might think.   Violent crime goes down the most in areas after “right-to-carry” laws are enacted.  John Lott, gun-control advocate, began to research correlations between gun control and deaths by guns.  He wanted to prove one thing, but his research showed that gun control did not lower the rate of crime with guns!  In other words, Lott found that gun control does not work.  Even those critics, who disagree, admit that his studies do show that arming law-abiding citizens does NOT increase violent gun crime!  Arming citizens is a deterrent to this kind of murder.

Mass shooters perpetrate their massacres in places where guns are not permitted in general—in schools, malls, and other “gun-free” zones.  Bans on specific guns don’t work either.  The killer, who is planning to shoot others, has no respect for gun-free zones as the rest of us do.  He seeks out such places where people gather in numbers.  (Lott advocates teachers carry and conceal weapons.)  Why not just control the number of humans under one roof?  That would bring down the the number of those murdered, obviously, but the idea is just as ludicrous as taking our self-defense protections away from us.


Illegal guns are not that difficult to buy, borrow, or steal.  We cannot free ourselves of guns.  They are easy to make for anyone set on that goal.  Disarming citizens does not disarm the bad guys or the crazy people.  And let us not forget the most important reason that we need to fight tooth and nail to keep our Second Amendment rights to bear arms.  That right was written into our Constitution for the very reason that “We, the People,” are allowed, if not required to throw off a dictatorial government that oppresses the people and the futures of our children.  This nation was born under, and because of the human right, and need, to be FREE.  We cannot allow this government to remove our birthright.  History explains quite adequately that prior to a tyrannical government usurping and fully oppressing the people, ALL privately owned guns are removed from private ownership, allowing unregulated power of government authority of the masses!  The fact that these events–these massacres–are happening in unnatural order, and in unnatural time frames, is telling and important and must be examined!  This is a dangerous time for all of us!



December 17, 2012 Posted by | Home, The United States of America Constitution | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


December 5, 2012

FULL INTERVIEW: Bill O’Reilly Takes on Bob Costas Over America’s ‘Gun Culture’


Tonight, Bob Costas went head-to-head with Bill O’Reilly about gun control in America. Costas found himself in the middle of the debate on guns after he spoke out during halftime at an NFL game about Kansas City Chiefs’ Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide.

The NBC sportscaster sat down for an interview with O’Reilly, who is outspoken about his own views on gun rights.

Follow Fox News Insider, the official blog of Fox News Channel on Twitter and Google+!

The Factor host asked Costas how he really feels about the right to bear arms. Costas said he’s not looking to repeal the Second Amendment. “I didn’t call for any specific prohibition on guns, never used the words gun control,” he defended.

Costas said he quoted columnist Jason Whitlock’s response to the tragedy because he “credibly” mentioned a gun culture in America that’s about a “mentality about and toward guns that almost always leads to tragedy rather than safety.”

Related Links:

O’Reilly asked Costas, “So, you’re saying you want a more stringent program by the authorities to make it harder to get guns?”

Costas interjected, “No, you are saying I’m saying that. […] If you were to ask me, I believe that there should be more comprehensive and effective controls on the sale of guns.”

O’Reilly brought up the recent massacre at a movie theater in Colorado, asking Costas, “You and I are in the theater, OK, in Colorado. We’re watching the Batman movie. The nut comes in through the back door with his guns and he opens fire. […] Would you rather have the choice of ducking down on the floor or having a handgun on you to pull out and defend yourself against the man?”

In that particular situation, Costas said, “I don’t want to have a gun on me.” He said it’s much more likely that there would be more carnage as a result.

O’Reilly said that was Costas’ “big mistake” and explained to him that, “You don’t want a gun, I want one. I want to be able to protect myself against that loon with a gun rather than being on the floor.”

Costas interrupted, stressing that it’s about a kind of mentality, but O’Reilly persisted, “I have this kind of thinking and millions of people have it: I want to be able to protect myself against that guy.”

In retrospect, Costas stands by his own remarks, but acknowledged, “I don’t back up on anything I said, but I think it might’ve been more effective if I said, ‘Look, if we’re looking for perspective on this, we’re going to have a serious discussion within sports […] about domestic violence, about the culture of the game itself, about the easy access to guns.’”

Related Links:

// <![CDATA[
javascript” src=”″&gt;
// ]]>Watch the latest video at

// <![CDATA[
javascript” src=”″&gt;
// ]]>Watch the latest video at

December 6, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


posted on November 13, 2012 by

Many people, including myself, have predicted that the re-election of Barack Obama will lead to the destruction of America as we knew it.  We believe that he is using policies such as Obamacare to bring about the financial collapse of our once great nation and that he will use his emergency powers to declare martial law and seize dictatorial control of the nation.

In the process of Obama’s power hungry scheme is the belief that he will do away with the Second Amendment right to bear arms and try to remove all firearms from the hands of the American people.  Obama has never hidden his anti-gun agenda, although he did do his best to avoid the topic during the debates and his many campaign appearances.  In one of the debates, he did mention about his desire to see a ban on assault weapons to be re-established.

Some are questioning whether or not Obama will actually push to ban all firearms or just assault weapons.  If so, how would be go about it?  He’s been using regulations and executive orders to bypass Congress on other important issues including immigration, so why wouldn’t he try to do the same with guns?  He knows he could not get any kind of anti-gun legislation passed through the Republican controlled House, so he most likely will have to use some kind of subtle or secretive method to accomplish it.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

Over the past couple of years, gun sales have seen a dramatic increase.  In fact, it is one of the few industries that have actually benefitted by Obama’s presidency.  Last Christmas, saw a huge jump in background checks which hit the 1.5 million mark.  In the six days prior to Christmas, there were 500,000 requests for background checks.

In the month prior to the election, background checks for prospective gun buyers was up by 18.4%.  However, in the week since the election, gun sales in the U.S. have skyrocketed, especially sales of assault weapons like the AK-47.

Dragonman Arms, a gun store in Colorado Springs owned by Mel Bernstein said the demand for assault weapons is so high right now that ammunition for them is starting to run short.  He normally orders around 7,000 rounds a week but could only get 3,000 from his distributors this last order because of the high demand.  Concerning gun sales, Bernstein reported:

“We’re going from normally six to eight guns a day, to 25. I stocked up, I got a stockpile of these AK-47s, we’re selling these like hot cakes. Luckily I had an idea of what was going on because it happened with Clinton.”

In Hankins, New York, Fernwood Firearms owner John Kielbasa told reporters:

“Sales are up. I had a guy waiting here first thing in the morning (the day after the election.) He came in, bought two AK-47s. It’s going to be good for me for business.”

So why are so many people buying so many guns?  Some say they are buying them now before the government forbids anymore sales.  Yet others are saying that they are stocking up on weapons, ammunition and food in preparation of America’s collapse.

I heard from one person who said they believe that America will fall under Obama and the country will go into complete chaos.  Food and supplies will become scarce causing millions to riot and loot and steal from others.  He said that he intends on protecting his family, his house and supplies from any and all intruders.  He also said that he expects government forces to start confiscating firearms and when they come to his house, it’s going to be a battle to the death.

I’ve also read numerous accounts saying that when America collapses, it will be time for another revolution.  It will be up to the millions of Americans who own guns to join in the revolution and help take our nation back from those that destroyed it, namely Barack Obama.

No matter how you look at it, these are dangerous and scary times and it seems that it’s going to get a lot worse in the foreseeable future.

Read more:


November 16, 2012 Posted by | Home, Must See, The United States of America Constitution, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Conservative Byte Article

Response:  Michael Moore is a buffoon!  He makes his mega bucks via capitalistic means and then demonizes that system.  He’s so narrow minded and tunnel-visioned that he actually believes taking away our Second Amendment rights will end maniacal slaughters.  Oh really?!  Are you, Mikey, going to defend us as the homicidal bombers,  Jihadists, and lunatics come to murder us on the job or in any public place?  Left up to you, we all would have to lie down and die because we cannot get a weapon to defend ourselves.  You are a fat cat, and therefore know nothing of what it means to be in the middle or on the bottom, and because of that you don’t know what you’re talking about.  You would have us undefended and unable to protect our homes and families based on a false logic that you ought to be above.  But I guess being wealthy doesn’t automatically assume intelligence.  Your delusions of grandeur are out of control, and you should come down from your mega ego to take a look at this issue up close.  Gun control has NEVER and will NEVER control a murderer.  What it will do is tie the hands of law-abiding citizens so that the killer is more at ease!  Never mind that taking guns out of the hands of citizens is a major step toward a one-party takeover.  This will happen because human beings always seek the lowest, basest level of character when power and wealth is great enough.  Only a handful of people will remain honest.  And by the way, you will not be happy, or as mouthy when the dictator tells you what to work on and what not to work on.   He might even tell you to forget about the social lecturing and dig ditches instead!

Just Me

July 25, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...


Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart


Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: