Warning to all Politicians –WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO DISARM US

It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unbendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to-and dependence upon –the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose-either piecemeal or in one sweeping act –those basic rights for which the citizens of America gave their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor over 200 years ago.

We will not disarm. The right to self-protection, the internal directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man, is the most fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against the of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all –those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

We will not disarm. Not in the face of robbers, rapists, and murderers who prey upon our families and friends; nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order-those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

We will not surrender our handguns.

We will not surrender our hunting arms.

And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An armed citizenry, the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms –is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpation.

An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence.

Should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of, may God forbid it, throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive this end. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties.

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens. Now-today-we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are times when our government is demanding –in the guise of measures for the common good –the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense.

These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility-to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights. Legislators, justices and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land-the Constitution.

They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one’s fellow citizens will also disarm one’s parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children and children’s children. They must bear in mind that there are good citizens who, taking heed of George Washington’s belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people, will not passively allow these teeth to be torn out.

There are good citizens who, taking heed of Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, will surrender not one of their rights. Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on the face of this planet. The right to keep and bear arms is the tap root of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world’s dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today. Today is a critical moment in our history.

Will we Americans passively lie down before a government that has grown disdainful of its best citizens? Or will we again declare, “We are the government, government functions at our behest, and it may not rescind our sacred rights?” Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our masters? Or will we place our faith in the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and remember the words and deeds of the daring, far-seeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play?

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails?

Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era-which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America-and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we be deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the words of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.

Legislators: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic –the right to bear arms.

Justices: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Lawmen: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and to protect-not to oppress, to disarm and to make helpless your countrymen. To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they ever have been through history. For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable.

For these reasons we must now make known: We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. We Will Not Disarm.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/warning-to-all-politicians-we-will-not-allow-you-to-disarm-us/

---

Obama to Unilaterally Disarm U.S.

That’s what this amounts to. Every time we’ve tried to be “reasonable” with the Russians/Soviets, or “bargain” with them from OTHER than a position of strength, it has bought us nothing but grief. We are still paying the prices for those past follies now.

Now Obama is pledging to dismantle the only thing we have left keeping the hordes at bay. Out military is now so week that they can be challenged, especially when we are stretched so thinly across the globe. The only deterrent we have left is the threat of nuclear retaliation. In conjunction with the dismantling of our offensive/retaliatory strike capability, Obama is doing his best to dismantle the defensive capability as well by scuttling the missile defense systems.

Our own “president” is now the biggest threat to our nation! HE MUST GO! Can’t those of you who voted for “change” see that with Obama staying in office we have no “hope?” Now with the liberals in COMPLETE control of both the house and senate following the appointment of Franken to the senate, THERE IS NOT STOPPING OBAMA’S COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST AGENDA. If we don’t “disarm” the house and senate by reigning in or removing the liberals, there will not be an America left to salvage by next year.

God, be merciful on us.

---

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090706/D9996QEG0.html

Obama, Medvedev agree to deal to cut nuke weapons

Jul 6, 5:31 PM (ET)
By STEVEN R. HURST

MOSCOW (AP) – Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev confidently committed to a year-end deal to slash nuclear stockpiles by about a third on Monday, but the U.S. leader failed to crack stubborn Kremlin objections to America’s missile defense plans – a major stumbling block to such an agreement.

Both men renewed pledges to pull U.S.-Russian relations out of the dismal state into which they had descended during the eight years of the Bush administration. And to that end, they signed a series of agreements and joint statements designed to enliven and quicken contacts on a broad range of issues – including cooperation on Afghanistan, a key Obama foreign policy objective.

Obama said the leaders both felt relations had “suffered from a sense of drift. President Medvedev and I are committed to leaving behind the suspicion and rivalry of the past.”

His host expressed similar good will.

“This is the first but very important step in improving full-scale cooperation between our two countries, which would go to the benefit of both states,” the Russian leader said. But he injected a note of caution, saying discussions so far “cannot remove the burden of all the problems.”

There was no statement of Russian readiness to help the United States persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, even though Obama’s top Russia adviser, Michael McFaul, told reporters in a post-meeting briefing that Iran dominated the two leaders’ private meeting that opened the summit. Talks continued in an expanded session that included 12 advisers for each president.

For all the upbeat public statements, a pall of disagreement on missile defense and NATO expansion lingered over the glittering Kremlin hall where Obama and Medvedev answered reporters’ questions. Obama said the meetings had been “frank,” diplomatic speak for difficult.

Obama sits down on Tuesday with Medvedev’s patron and predecessor as president, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the target of a verbal poke from the U.S. president last Friday. In a pre-summit interview with The Associated Press, Obama said Putin still had one foot in the old, Cold War way of doing things.

While Medvedev insisted on Monday that a replacement to the keystone START I nuclear arms reduction treaty, which expires Dec. 5, must be linked to Russian concerns about the U.S. missile defense program in Eastern Europe, it remained unclear if the Kremlin was prepared to scuttle the negotiations over that issue.

Gary Samore, Obama’s chief adviser on weapons of mass destruction and arms control, told reporters he did not believe the Russians were prepared to walk away.

“I think at the end of the day – because our missile defense does not actually pose a threat to Russia’s strategic forces – I think they’ll be prepared to go ahead without trying to extract a price on missile defense.”

And McFaul said it had been made “crystal clear” from the beginning that negotiations about a START replacement would not include any missile defense issues.

Washington insists the defense program is designed only to protect European allies from missile attack by Iran.

Hoping to ease Kremlin concerns, Obama promised that an assessment of whether the missile defense would actually work would be finished by late summer, earlier than expected, and that he would share initial U.S. thoughts with Medvedev.

Obama also said he understood in principle that arms control must take into account both offensive and defensive weapons. But he insisted the missile defense installations planned for Poland and the Czech Republic would pose no threat to Russia. He said they were not being built to intercept missiles from “a mighty Russian arsenal.”

Obama does not approach the missile defense issue with the same fervor as former President George W. Bush, whose administration was responsible for reaching agreement with the two former Soviet satellites to serve as sites for the system.

The planned START replacement pact – the centerpiece summit agreement – calls for each side to reduce strategic warheads to a range of 1,500 to 1,675, and strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500 to 1,100. Current limits allow a maximum of 2,200 warheads and 1,600 launch vehicles. The new treaty, as conceived, would run for 10 years. Each side would have seven years to reach reduction goals with the final three years used for verification.

Medvedev called the plan a “reasonable compromise.”

Among the deals meant to sweeten Obama’s two days of talks here and show progress toward resetting U.S.-Russian ties was a joint statement on Afghanistan. It included a deal to allow the United States to transport arms and military personnel across Russian land and airspace into Afghanistan.

The White House said that would save $133 million a year, through a transit fee waiver, shorter flying times and fuel savings.

The presidents outlined other areas in which they said their countries would work together to help stabilize Afghanistan, including increasing assistance to the Afghan army and police, and training counternarcotics personnel. A joint statement said they welcomed increased international support for upcoming Afghan elections and were prepared to help Afghanistan and Pakistan work together against the “common threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking.”

Among other side agreements was the resumption of military cooperation, suspended after Russia invaded neighboring Georgia last August and sent relations into a nosedive. Last August, after the Georgian president ordered his military to try to retake the breakaway region of South Ossetia, Russia invaded and crushed the tiny nation’s military.

McFaul said Obama would never accept Russia’s contention that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway Georgia region, are no longer part of Georgia.

Putin has voiced deep anger with Georgia’s coziness with the United States as it lobbies to join NATO, and the standoff about Georgia is likely to be a central issue when Putin meets with Obama on Tuesday.

Obama also will deliver a speech Tuesday to graduates of Moscow’s New Economic School in a bid to reach out to the Russian people. In addition, he plans to meet with opposition leaders who are continually under government pressure for their complaints about retreating democracy and freedom under Putin.

—

Associated Press Writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.

Mexico, Don’t Blame Us

The answer to gun crime is giving MORE guns to law-abiding citizens, not taking them away. When a criminal knows that there is a better than even chance that he/she will be shot if they break into a home, breaking into that home doesn’t seem like such a good idea anymore. If we let our Border Patrol, police, and military actually shoot bad guys trying to get into our country instead of forcing them to be foot servants to the criminals and illegal aliens, the illegal aliens would stay away, and the crime rate would be a lot lower. Nugent for President!

by Ted Nugent (more by this author)

Spoons Made Michael Moore Fat

Here comes the continuous, faulty logic used to attack gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.  And worse than simply applying faulty logic to the gun control argument, liberals are intellectually dishonest in that they don’t apply their “logic” consistently across the board.  Let’s look at a few examples:

Object of Liberal Attention	Liberal Logic	Truth
Guns	Guns Kill People	People Kill People
If Liberal Logic were applied across the board…
Cars	Drunk drivers use cars to kill people, therefore we must ban cars	Drunk drivers kill people, therefore we must punish (ban) drunk drivers
Fat People	Fat people use spoons to eat, therefore we must ban spoons	Fat people lack self control. If there is a penalty for being fat, then the individual must suffer the consequences

__
__

Let’s All Surrender Our Weapons — You First!

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)

Posted 04/08/2009 ET
Updated 04/08/2009 ET

The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn’t know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it’s hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible — other than the gun.So far, this year’s public multiple shootings were committed by:– Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.

— Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers “America sucks” yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama, who blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.

— Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high school dropout with “violent tendencies” — according to one of his ex-wives — who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.

— Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. — before eventually being shot himself.

— Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.

It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.

After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver’s ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon’s supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in “self-defense,” which I take it includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground.

I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in “self-defense.” Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I’d known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.

Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.

It’s something in liberals’ DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control.

The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama’s response to North Korea’s openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.  (or more accurately, Obama is yielding our power and sovereignty to the UN, who as usual is paralyzed and unable to do anything.  If the UN accomplishes anything, it’s only because America gets it done.)

If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: “The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________.”

Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.

Obama explained that “the United States has a moral responsibility” to lead disarmament efforts because America is “the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon.”

So don’t go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.

On the other hand, the Japanese haven’t acted up much in the last, say, 64 years …

Fortunately, our sailors didn’t wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I’ll ask the U.N. to remind the “international community” that “the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates.”

Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who’s always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.

Police — whom I gather liberals intend to continue having guns — and intrepid U.N. resolution drafters can’t be everywhere, all the time.

If a single civilian in that Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two — including the shooter. In the end, the cops didn’t stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself.

“The shooter will eventually run out of ammo” strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged multiple murderers.

But it’s highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York’s restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.