• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    May 2024
    M T W T F S S
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    texan2driver on NY Doctor Confirms Trump Was R…
    markone1blog on NY Doctor Confirms Trump Was R…
    markone1blog on It’s Only OK for Kids to…
    America On Coffee on Is Healthcare a “Right?…
    texan2driver on Screw Fascistbook and *uc…
  • Archives

This is NOT the First Time Courts Have Ruled that Police HAVE NO DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOU.

There have been several landmark decisions like this that say police have no duty or responsibility to protect you.  Yet the idiotic, tyrannical left says “You don’t need a gun to defend yourself.  Just call the police.”

Tell me, libtards.  If the leftist judges whom YOU appointed say that the police YOU say I’m supposed to depend on for my self-defense don’t have to defend me, how do I defend myself?

***THIS*** is why you must literally fight to the death for your right to keep and bear arms.

+



Judge issues a stunning ruling in lawsuit against police and school officials by Parkland victims

A federal judge issued the stunning decision that police and school officials had no responsibility to shield the children entrusted to their care when they were attacked at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.

Read entire article hereJudge issues a stunning ruling in lawsuit against police and school officials by Parkland victims

Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense

Just because you are a Christian doesn’t mean you need to roll over and let someone kill you.  You have a right, and a responsibility to defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

“To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.”

+



Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense

Just because we’re good people doesn’t mean we won’t kill you – Rick Grimes

Right. So, maybe a Biblical defense for self-defense shouldn’t begin with quotation from the protagonist in a televised Zombie apocalypse set in the dystopian near-future. But, when I heard Rick say that, it was real. There’s no room for pretense when zombies are kicking down the doors to your rickety old barn.

We may not have zombies kicking down our barn doors, but like Rick Grimes, we live in a world where pretense will get you killed. Normalcy bias will get your killed. Pacifism will get you killed. Your pretty little philosophies and pontifications will get you killed. We live in a world of bad guys, albeit they’re not the walking dead. But, they are dangerous. And frankly, it’s time Christian leaders recognize that danger and stop being such metrosexual nancies without a modicum of moral clarity when dogmatizing our followers on the WWJD of martyrdom. In short, Christians leaders need to look less like Reverend Lovejoy and more like the Machine Gun Preacher. What you may not realize while locked away in your pastor’s study is that our world looks more like Rick Grimes’ than Homer Simpson’s. Sometimes, people need a good killing.

What I need you to do, if you’re to stomach the rest of this article, is take any notion you have of a Big Lebowski-looking Christ who rides the clouds on Falcor the Luck Dragon, handing out puppies and skittles out of Santa’s bottomless gift bag and put that image into the dustbin of your mind. Stop tasting the rainbow, put down the Rachel Held Evans book, and gird up your loins like a man. Instead, focus on the actual Christ, the one whose feet were caked with mud and muck and suggested his disciples go out and buy a sword on the night of his crucifixion, knowing they would soon be outlaws and in need of protection (Luke 22:36). Yes, focus on Christ, who is the second person of the Trinity and who transcends in ancient divinity the temporality of his earthly walk, and let us develop a Bible-long systematic theology of martyrology and self-defense.

As much as Jesus Seminar liberals would like to limit the teachings of Christ to his three-year ministry chronicled in the Gospel accounts, the reality for orthodox Christians is that every word of the Bible should be colored in Red. Being Trinitarians, we believe in a Triune God consisting of three Persons making up the Godhead (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, KJV). The Persons of the Trinity, consisting of and being in themselves God, are at perfect unity and harmony together (Isaiah 61:1-2). Each one performs and acts according to the same will (John 6:38). In short, the words of God the Father, who inspired the Sacred Texts through God the Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), is indeed the will and word of God the Son (John 1:1,14).

What this means is that to understand the teachings of God the Son, without juxtaposing his teaching with the teachings of God the Father, requires a systematic teaching on the subject of martyrology and self-defense throughout the entire canon of Scripture.

While it is true that Jesus told Peter to put away His sword because he must be crucified for the sins of the world (Matthew 26:52), he told them that very night to buy a sword in advance of their coming persecution (Luke 22:36). While Jesus’ exhortation that we turn the cheek from insult (Matthew 5:39) has been taken by pacifists (defined by JD’d dictionary as “those who let others die for their lives and liberties”) to be the locus classicus text for passive non-resistance, a robust theology of persecution reveals that that the thrice-holy God has indeed called his people to self-defense, protection of the innocent through violent means, and promotion of the general welfare through war. There is no logical reason to believe that God’s call to arms throughout Scripture has been abrogated in this current dispensation, for God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and his Word is immutable (Hebrews 6:17). Furthermore, the call to martyrdom that we see repeated throughout the New Testament does not imply that our death for the sake of the cross be a peaceful surrendering of ourselves over to injustice or voluntary death.

A thorough analysis of God’s divine hand guiding the body-politic of ancient Israel reveals an understood right of self-defense. We are to deliver the innocent from those that seek them harm (Proverbs 82:4). While murder is clearly prohibited (Leviticus 24:16-17), the taking of a murderer’s life is not prohibited and neither is it murder (Genesis 9:6). The qualifying distinctions between killing and murder are found in places like Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. In the commonwealth laws of Israel, delivered by God, one had the right to take the life of one breaking into their home in the night (Exodus 22:2). The general equity of this Old Testament law (to use words from the London Baptist and Westminister Confession) – that is, what is moral, universal and perpetual in nature – is that it is morally acceptable to take the life of one who will harm the innocent.

Even though our enemies are not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), the same is true for the Israelites as they were rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, when they were instructed to arm themselves for potential conflict (Nehemiah 4:17). The realization of spiritual enemies did not negate the reality that there might be some people in need of a good killing, and God’s people were to be prepared to fight back. When Haman’s plans went awry because of Esther’s obedience, God’s people were instructed to kill those who sought their lives (Esther 9:2-5). When Abraham’s family was in jeopardy, he raised an army and killed their captors (Genesis 14:14-18) and was later blessed by God for that action.

To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.

David’s hands were taught to operate a lethal weapon by God (Psalm 18:24). The limp-wristed effiminazi Intelligentsia calling for the disarmament of Christians today are a far cry from the man who was after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22). And while we do not trust in our weapons, but in God (Psalm 44:7), this presupposes the ownership of weapons. On any given day, I may carry a number of different lethal weapons, but my trust is in God that they will fire properly, hit their target, or in God’s kind providence, I’ll find their use unnecessary.

Furthermore, we must understand that Christ’s martyrdom is wholly unlike our own. Christ’s death was a sacrifice, and offering it up bought the souls of men. Our life cannot be given in the same manner of Christ (for we neither lay it down nor pick it up of our own accord), and neither does it propitiate for any sins. Although we are, indeed, sheep sent out to wolves, the Good Shepherd never intended and neither does he ask us to provide a pacifistic buffet of mutton for any wolf that would seek to devour us.

That a martyr may resist, does not make him less of a martyr. That a man doesn’t resist when his family is in peril, does make him less of a man.

In light of the shooting at UCC, I call on all Christian leaders to stop the liberal pontificating on how guns caused this problem and call them to consider on why a lack of guns (along with a murderous, depraved heart as the root issue) caused this problem. Christ has called us to love our neighbor (Mark 12:31), and if you are unprepared to defend your neighbor due to dainty sensibilities or the irrational fear of using a firearm, I’d suggest you do not love your neighbors as much as you ought.

jdsig-1024x284

+
Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/10/02/why-some-people-need-a-good-killing-a-biblical-defense-for-self-defense/


Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

If you don’t want to own a gun, don’t own a gun.  No one should force you to own one.  But if you are a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, no one should be able to prevent you from doing so.  This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. 

The author of this article does a good job of debunking poor theology, and explaining why it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to arm and DEFEND themselves.  The gun in the hands of the righteous is NOT a tool of vengeance, but rather a tool of defense.

+



A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.

It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.

Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.

My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries. 

Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,

The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.

I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.

Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of  self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.

Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:

The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world. 

One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.

Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…

For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “The ruler does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.

2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.

A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of  Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”

If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.

3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.

Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.

Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.

4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword. 

This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.

[Editor’s Note: This is Part A in addressing Piper’s errors. Part B will come shortly after Christmas. This post was contributed by JD Hall]

*Update: JD was intending to write Part B to address Piper’s errors. Because of his holiday schedule, he will instead be on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Program to discuss the rest of his concerns, this Christmas evening. You can listen here.

Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/12/23/a-response-to-john-piper-why-gun-ownership-is-biblical-and-good-part-a/
+


The Fate of a Disarmed Populace

Show this to anyone who tells you gun control is a good idea. If they still think it’s a good idea after seeing what happens to unarmed people, they are the enemy and someone to be feared.

 

Unarmed Christians

10 Need-to-Know Gun Control Myths (Lies)

The left CAN’T win the debate on gun control (or any other issue) based on facts or the merit of their argument.  The ONLY way they can advance their agenda is to lie about it.  That is pretty easy with a government run media arm helping them push their lies on a receptive public.
+


10 Need-to-Know Gun Control Myths

by Kyle Wintersteen | May 1, 2013

AR-control

Those who favor a society without gun rights seem to be prone to spreading false information. At best, anti-gun leaders unknowingly spread baseless accusations; at worst, they willingly to lie to achieve their objectives. Regardless, it is my observation that a host of gun control myths began circulating during the 1960s and continue today.

For instance, how many times have you heard President Barack Obama pushing the Manchin-Toomey gun control bill because, according to the him, 90 percent of Americans support so-called universal background checks? Well, a Pew Research poll was conducted after the Senate defeated the bill. Turns out only 47 percent of Americans are disappointed the bill failed, while 32 percent describe themselves as “very happy” or “relieved.” So, Mr. President, you can quit arguing that the country is behind you on this.

If we can spread the truth about this myth now, maybe it will die. But there are other, older myths that have festered for years. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, if a lie is spread enough, it becomes the truth. Even some gun owners can start to believe the nonsense, which is particularly dangerous in the current political environment. So the next time you hear a gun-control advocate rattling off one of these myths, shock him with the truth. Continue reading

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/


‘Gun Control Fails,’ Say Statistics from … Gun-Control Advocates

The ONLY way gun control advocates can convince you that gun control is “necessary” or a “good idea” is to LIE.  There is not a shred of REAL evidence, either here or in other countries, that gun control works at anything except disarming the citizens and leaving them at the mercy of both criminals and government.  Period.  Not debatable.
+
+


‘Gun Control Fails,’ Say Statistics from … Gun-Control Advocates

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/?singlepage=true

Posted By Howard Nemerov On December 29, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Crime,Gun Control | 347 Comments

After the Newtown, Connecticut mass murder [1], anti-rights politicians and media shifted into high gear. The only “solution” for such a tragedy was another gun ban; within two days, Senator Dianne Feinstein [2] introduced her version. Pundits like the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein [3] politicized the tragedy by claiming that America is an unusually violent place, with the only answer being more gun control.

There’s a problem with all of their hyperbole: it is based upon myth and manipulated data.

Continue reading

Bring your guns to Church

Updated 4/4/2012, 10:17, to correct formatting
Many Christians have been brainwashed and browbeaten into believing that they should not defend themselves when attacked or threatened by a criminal or other person who wishes them ill.  Many have also fallen for the lie that we shouldn’t own or carry a gun for self defense.  This could not be further from the truth.

Our founding fathers were much more well versed in the Bible than most who we call “Biblical scholars” today.  They considered this matter while while hammering out our Constitution, and there are very good reasons that we have our 2nd Amendment as a result.

As you read through the article, I encourage you to look up the scriptural references the author lists. 


http://americanvision.org/2342/%E2%80%9Cbring-your-pieces-to-church%E2%80%9D-sunday/

“Bring Your Pieces to Church” Sunday

Filed under American History, Articles, Featured {86 comments}

Imagine the following scenario: At church this Sunday, while reviewing the list of announcements and upcoming events for your church, your pastor added, “Oh, and don’t forget: on Sundays we have our regular target practice. Make sure to bring your rifles. Make sure to bring your pieces to church.”

Absurd, right? Not so. It used to be the American way. For example, a 1631 law in Virginia required citizens to own firearms, to engage in practice with them, and to do so publicly on holy days. It demanded that the people “bring their pieces to the church.” Somewhere along the line we have lost this mindset. Today the ideas of church and arms are assumed to be at odds, as if loving your neighbor has nothing to do with the preservation and defense of life and property.

But the idea of Christian society and an armed, skilled populace actually have deep historical roots. Alfred the Great codified the laws of England in the 9th Century, often resorting to biblical law in order to do so (where he departed from biblical law, the integrity of his famous law code is quite poor). Alfred applied the Deuteronomic laws of kings that forbad a standing army (Deut. 17), and as a result developed a national defense based on militia:

By the Saxon laws, every freeman of an age capable of bearing arms, and not incapacitated by any bodily infirmity, was in case of a foreign invasion, internal insurrection, or other emergency, obliged to join the army.…[1]

Continue reading

Self Defense Truths

  • Shooting Advice: Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not to protect you.
  • When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
  • Never let someone or thing that threatens you get inside arm’s length and never say “I’ve got a gun”.  If you feel you need to use deadly force for heaven’s sake let the first sound they hear be the safety clicking off, and they shouldn’t have time to hear anything after that if you are doing your job.
  • ‘The average response time of a 911 call is over 23 minutes. The response time of a .44 magnum is 1400 feet per second.’ Continue reading

Looking Down the Wrong End of the Barrel

Do you support gun control? Do you support gun registration? Do you support despot dictators? Do you support ethnic cleansing? Do you support criminals, rapists, and murderers?

If you support gun registration and control, whether you know it or not, you are supporting the ability of evil regimes to confiscate guns leaving you defenseless. You are supporting the ability of those dictators to exterminate people who they don’t like or disagree with them. You are supporting the ability of criminals to steal, rape, and murder at will, with no resistance.

Gun control laws aren’t about controlling guns or crime. They are about controlling the populace. It is documented FACT that EVERYWHERE gun control laws are implemented, crime INCREASES. This is because only law abiding citizens obey these laws leaving themselves defenseless in the face of animals who wish to harm them. It is documented historic fact that every time a despotic government has exterminated millions of its own people, they have been able to do so only because those people were UNARMED. As in the case of the Jews in Germany, gun registrations were used to identify gun owners, and confiscate weapons from those who disagreed with the regime. It can happen here.

Our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the only thing standing between us and these same outcomes. Our founding fathers knew that an unarmed populace could not resist evil. Gun control advocates attempt to dilute the importance of the 2nd Amendment by twisting its words, by spreading lies and misinformation about gun death statistics, by using only modern context to explain it away (i.e. “militia”), and by using an increasingly liberal court system to try to nullify the 2nd Amendment.

There is nothing less than our freedom and survival at stake in defending our right to keep and bear arms.


http://www.garynorth.com/public/7241.cfm

Jews: Looking Down the Wrong End of the Barrel

Gary North

Nov. 12, 2010

Aaron Zelman’s organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is well known in second amendment circles as an outfit that takes no ideological prisoners. The JPFO has released a video, No Guns for Jews, that states the case as well as anything I have seen.

The video makes it clear that Jews have been at the wrong end of the barrel for longer than there have been barrels. There is a long tradition of disarmed Jews — so long, in fact, that Jews have mentally accepted it. Zelman is trying to change their minds.

The problem he faces is this: the documents that the video offers for support — the Pentateuch, the Talmud, and their medieval commentators — are out of favor in modern Jewish circles. The other document — the United States Constitution — has also been out of favor on this issue in many gentile circles.

The moral issue is self-defense. It is not revolution.

The legal issue is the right to keep and bear arms: a Jewish right and an American right. This right is under fire. The “assault weapon” of those who want to legislate away this right has been excessive trust in the government. The video makes this clear.

I wish every subgroup in the United States would fund and produce a video like this, targeting its own members. The second amendment is under assault. We need to keep and bear digital arms.

This is an almost flawless video from a persuasion standpoint. It targets a specific audience. It presents its case in terms of the concerns of this audience. It offers a specific ethical case, based on the official documents of this audience. It presents evidence of what has happened in the past to members of this audience because of their refusal to honor the ethical principle. It identifies specific members of the group who have openly called for the continuing violation of the original ethical principle. Then there is a call to action: join the organization.

All in all, it could serve as a case study of how to create an effective video.

For years, I have been what you might call a gentile free rider on Zelman’s work. I have decided to stop my free riding. I made a donation. The video persuaded me!
+


The Palestinians are just innocent victims! And Barack Obama is a fiscally conservative American Patriot…

THIS is why the Israelis have a blockade.


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1255409&id=1080169911

This is why the “innocent victims” in Gaza can’t be trusted.

This is a captured Palestinian garbage truck from Gaza.

The truck is set up to fire 9 Kasem rockets and then drive off innocently.

The note pasted on the drivers door says In case of traffic violations, please contact The Palestinian Authority.

The Israelis have evidence of ambulances and emergency vehicles set up the same way.
This is why the Israeli Government inspects every ship bringing “aid” to the Gaza Strip.
+


Liberals Showing Antisemitism, Thinly Disguised Until Now

This is the face of anti-semitism in America. And what a lovely face it is 😦

How is it that liberals are NEVER called out for things like this, or having been a high ranking member of the KKK (Byrd), or being blatant race-baiters (Sharpton/Jackson), yet when a conservative simply advocates FOLLOWING THE LAW he/she is labeled as a racist by the left and pummeled by the willing accomplice media? As a friend of mine once said, “Standards are good, but double standards aren’t twice as good.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14&feature=player_embedded


+


Craigs List Add: Victim or Victor? The 2nd Amendment Makes the Choice Possible

Whether or not this is actually true, it illustrates the benefit of being armed. It gives you a choice of whether or not to be a victim.

If the dirtbag has enough of a life to actually ruin, this would be a pretty cool way to handle the situation. However, I suspect the scumbag mugging you wouldn’t have credit cards with much of a credit limit, or anything else of much value.

Just shoot him and be done with it.


To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.

Date: 2009-05-27, 1 :43 a.m. E.S.T.

I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend’s purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I’d like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn’t expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head … isn’t it?!

I know it probably wasn’t fun walking back to wherever you’d come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I’m sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother or “Momma” as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you’d done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, — on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!

I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go’s, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]

I then threw your wallet into the big pink “pimp mobile” that was parked at the curb …. after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver’s side of the car.

Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what ‘s going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA’s office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target.

The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).

In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you … but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you’ve chosen to pursue in life.. Remember, next time you might not be so lucky.Have a good day!

Thoughtfully yours,
Alex


Democrats Declare Government to be God

What are “unalienable” rights?  The dictionary defines the term as rights which are not to be separated, given away, or taken away.  Don’t confuse this with “inalienable” which implies that the rights can’t be taken away without CONSENTUNalienable rights are forever.  These are rights, which according to our founding fathers, were given to us by our CREATOR, GodOur rights do not flow from government. Pay close attention to the words of Tom Harkin, because there is a difference.

What are our unalienable rights?  The founding fathers started the list with “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  It can also be extrapolated (not interpolated) since they are included in the original amendments that the right to freedom of speech, the right to practice or not practice the religion of your choice (atheism is a religion), the right to self defense (2nd Amendment), and the right to privacy are included in this list.

Find me a place ANYWHERE in the constitution that says free health care is a RIGHT, or that a senator, congressman, president, or ANY PERSON has the power to give or take away UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

Senator Tom Harkin and his fellow democrats have declared government to be God.  Do you think God delegated this responsibility and power?  Somehow I don’t think so.

Liberals, communists, socialists, progressives, whatever they call themselves are STEALING our rights and placing themselves on the throne.  They are building a framework to allow them to completely destroy the constitution as the law of the land in America, and install an oligarchy.  Communism.

Communism has failed EVERY time it has been tried.  It fails because it ignores basic human nature.  It ignores the basic human thirst for freedom and independence, and the desire to improve ones situation.  Once you are told that you can’t move up in life, can’t “get ahead,” can’t save to buy a bigger home or things to make your life easier, and told that all you produce will be taken from you and given to those who produce nothing, the motivation to produce is gone.  When the motivation to produce EXCESS is removed, the excess on which any economy grows is removed, and the excess which communism depends on to spread around around is removed.  You are left with empty promises, poverty, and suffering which result in economic and societal collapse.

So listen with FEAR and ANGER to the words of Tom Harkin as he declares the government to be the god with the power to give or take away your rights.

These people MUST be removed from office NOW.  This destruction of our constitution can NOT be allowed to continue.

In his “starter home” analogy, what Harkin doesn’t admit is that the “starter home” they are building with the expectation of adding on to is a TAR PAPER SHACK.  It is not a good foundation to build on unless you intend to collapse the system and put the one you REALLY want in place.


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/30/dear-sen-harkin-these-are-terrible-materials-for-building-a-starter-home/

Dear Sen. Harkin, These Are Terrible Materials For Building A Starter Home

By: Jon Walker Wednesday December 30, 2009 3:30 pm

Sen. Tom Harkin continues to refer to the Senate health reform bill as a “starter home” in a new entry on the Huffington Post.

Instead of that “partial loaf” analogy, I like to think of this bill as like a starter home. It is not the mansion of our dreams. But it has a solid foundation, giving every American access to quality, affordable coverage. It has an excellent, protective roof, which will shelter Americans from the worst abuses of health insurance companies. And this starter home has plenty of room for additions and improvements.

This bill has a terrible foundation. It is a starter home built with the equivalent of toxic drywall, lead paint, a poorly mixed cement foundation, and faulty electric wiring.

The bill is built on the extremely wasteful and inefficient private insurance system and contains one of the biggest rollbacks in decades of women’s reproductive rights. It, in effect, gives a permanent exclusivity to expensive biologics, and still denies Americans the ability to buy cheaper drugs from overseas. It has insufficient regulations and leaves the regulator enforcement purely up to the states, which have a poor track record enforcing the current regulations on their books. Regulation without enforcement is worthless. It throws good money after bad without fixing the underlying problems. The cost of the insurance will be too high and the quality of the insurance is too low. Funneling billions of dollars and forcing millions of Americans to buy a product that is frankly a terrible bargain is not a good foundation to build on. It is only a good foundation for the private insurance companies because it further enriches and entrenches them. Rewarding the failure of the private health insurance system with even more money and more customers is not how you want to build your “starter home.”

Harkin is definitely correct when he says, “a starter home has plenty of room for additions and improvements.” There are many, many, many problems with this bill that need to be corrected. Unfortunately, no one is going to want to put additions on a terribly built home, and no one is going to want to rehire the same contractor that so completely botched the construction of the home to build the addition. I would love it if this were a smaller home, but built with a sturdy foundation.

In reality, what we have is a massive corporate giveaway that will serve to discredit the “progressive” principles that Harkin falsely claims this thing is built on. Teddy Roosevelt was the progressive trust buster. It makes a mockery of the term “progressive” to claim a plan to force Americans to buy expensive, low-quality goods from insurance companies exempt form anti-trust laws (laws that Roosevelt championed) and subsidized with taxpayer money is in anyway “progressive.”

http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_14149534?source=most_emailed

Congress — the new God?

JOHN DOLPHIN

Updated: 01/08/2010 02:07:22 PM EST
Recently Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, asserted that Congress has succeeded in granting the American People a new “unalienable” right, the right to health care. No doubt, the use of the word “unalienable” was deliberate. Harkin went on to imply this is just the beginning. Other politicians echoed Harkin’s stance.

Harkin, although sworn to uphold the Constitution, doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care, that Congress does not grant the American People our unalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence clearly states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Constitution and its amendments enumerate our rights. The amendment process provides for adding rights the American people wish to have established or more clearly delineated. That’s why the first 10 amendments are referred to as The Bill of Rights. Nowhere in our system of government is there authorization for creating rights by congressional action.

When are the American people going to wake up?

The “political class,” regardless of party or persuasion, considers itself gods! They are establishing a religion, a religion which affords them nearly divine power. It may not be a traditional theistic religion. It is nonetheless a unified system of beliefs which holds the decisions of government to be dogma.

That is statism. The statists even intend for their decisions to be eternal. Evidence the attempt to preclude future Congresses from changing certain provisions of pending health care legislation. They also hold as absolute the state’s authority to make any decision it wishes, without the consent of the governed and with no regard for constitutional constraints. Evidence the deal made with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., which violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: “. . . all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. . ..” At last count, 13 states’ attorneys generals are threatening a constitutional challenge if the “Nelson deal” survives the legislative process.

We’ve seen this before. Throughout history, whether emperors, kings, fascists or communists, the statists’ position has always been that they know best. It was the statism of King George which inspired the Declaration of Independence. Statism is antithetical to the defining principles of our nation.

No matter how persuasive the claims of altruism, government control of citizens’ rights (whether granting or denying) is oppression. Under our Constitution, there are only two ways to establish a right:

— Find it enumerated in the Constitution or existing amendments.

— Pass a constitutional amendment.

As regards rights, the only role for Congress is protecting our constitutionally established rights. If a majority of Congress believes there is a right to health care, they should explain where it is found in the Constitution as amended, or propose and have ratified a new constitutional amendment. If either method were successful, I’d be the first in line for my government medical card. Otherwise, there is no right to health care. There is only the belief of those who assert that position. Governmental action based solely on belief, without proper constitutional implementation, is the imposition of religion in its rawest form.

This is not a Democratic vs. Republican issue, nor is it a liberal vs. conservative argument. It is an essential principle of constitutional government. It is of utmost concern to all citizens regardless of all political stripes. Statism is a double-edged sword which cuts in all directions. Presently, the process of governance is in the control of “liberals.” It could as easily come under “conservative” control. Someday it could be controlled by factions as yet defined. In no case should politicians have the power they are presently assuming. To use the words of Lincoln: “government of the people, by the people and for the people” is the clear intent of our Founding Fathers and the system they codified.

Unless Americans decisively assert themselves at the ballot box (vote Democratic, vote Republican, vote independent, but for God’s sake, vote) this November and in November 2012, we will have implicitly, if not explicitly, given our consent to the dogma that Congress is the absolute power on Earth and in Heaven. We will have endorsed the belief that Congress has the authority to grant, create or deny any right it wishes by legislative fiat. In fact, we will be complicit in a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment by allowing the government to establish statism as a secular religion. Where’s the ACLU when you really need them?

Whether we agree or disagree with the current elected politicians, “We the people” better think long and hard about how we want our government to serve our interests. The day will come, if it hasn’t already, when the politicians will enforce their will and it will be in no one’s interest but their own. We will have ceded so much power to the politicians that, well, God help us. According to Jefferson, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Please, I implore you, wake up; be vigilant.

John Dolphin is CEO of CADS-USA in Hallam.


Obama Lie: “I won’t try to take your guns away from you.” Yeah, right.

Wise Americans feared that a Candidate Obama turned president would attempt to take away many of our liberties.

Obama has felt free to take any liberty not expressly forbidden to him by the general public.  Don’t confuse that with the constitution, because Obama obviously doesn’t care about that.  He thinks the constitution is merely a document of “negative liberties.”

Any time citizens feared Obama would attempt to grab a specific liberty or right, he has merely lied about his intentions to placate the weak minded among us.

During the financial and automotive meltdown, Obama said he had no desire to be in the banking or automotive business.  Yet, the federal government headed by Obama owns banks and auto makers, and dictates salaries, bonuses, and more.  In the health care “debate” he claimed that illegal aliens would not be paid for, yet again he lied (thank you, Joe Wilson).  He said there would be “not one thin dime” of new taxes on 95% of Americans under his administration.  That promise/lie went the way of the do-do.  It is living in the same place as the pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per  year.

So when Obama waves his hand in an attempt to push a Jedi mind trick on us saying he has no intention of taking our guns away from us, based upon his track record of dishonesty, why should we believe him?  Simple.  We shouldn’t. Despite what he says, his record on the 2nd Amendment shows that he has no desire whatsoever to let you keep your firearms.  Let’s look at some examples.

  • Opposed bill in Illinois that asserted the right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, quantifying that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession.
  • Double-speak: “I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”
  • Obama lied about endorsing Illinois handgun ban
    • No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
    • Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
      • 35. Do you support state legislation to:
      • a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
      • b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
      • c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
  • Elitist Obama revealed how he truly feels about mainstream America when he said “It’s not surprising they get bitter.  They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
  • More Obama double-speak:
    • Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
    • A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
  • 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month (if you’re not a criminal, why should it matter if you buy more than one gun per month?)
  • Surprisingly, Obama votes in favor of law allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons.  Why?
    • Obama said “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“
    • However, another reason for Obama’s uncharacteristic vote soon emerged.  Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
  • Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
    • Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
    • Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
    • Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
  • Voted AGAINST prohibiting civil liability actions against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.  ANOTHER BACK DOOR WAY OF CONTROLLING GUNS.

When Obama said “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,” he forgot to add “right now.”  Obama and his henchmen like Eric Holder, along with the anti-constitution and liberty liberals in congress and the senate will continue to do all they can to EVENTUALLY take our guns away from us.  But in the meantime they will do all they can to make gun ownership and possession by law-abiding citizens as expensive and inconvenient as possible.  One of the proposals being floated by anti-gun advocates is to make all ammunition and powder for reloading such that the powder will break down and become useless after a certain period, one to two years.  There are several other such proposals outlined below.

Do you oppose ownership of guns by private citizens?  If you do, what do you think stands between you and criminals or an oppressive government?  The government and legal system have paralyzed the police to the point that they CAN’T protect us.  When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.  As for governments, remember that throughout history those who have pounded their guns and swords into plowshares have plowed for those who did not.

If you don’t fight for your constitutional rights and freedoms, who will?


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=34932

Ammunition Control by the Obama Administration

by A.W.R. Hawkins
Posted 12/22/2009 ET

Without bullets, a gun is no more useful as a weapon than a rock or a hammer. Although an unloaded gun could be thrown at an intruder or a tyrant, the lack of ammunition ultimately reduces it to the status of a glorified paperweight.

And this is not lost on the nearly 100 million gun owners in America, a number of which are asking if the current shortage of bullets is the result of backdoor efforts at gun control (via ammunition control) by the Obama Administration?

The quick answer to that question is — not exactly.

In other words, the reasons behind the current shortage, as the well as the price increases on what little ammunition is available, are both governmental and nongovernmental in nature.

As for the government’s role, a prime example arose in March 2009 when the Department of Defense (DOD) suddenly changed its policy about selling old brass from spent military rounds to Georgia Arms, an ammunition manufacturer located in Winston, Georgia.

According to Curtis Shipley, President of Georgia Arms, on March 12, 2009, the DOD, which had been a longstanding source of cheap brass for the ammo manufacturer, decided that brass could only be purchased from the military if it was “mutilated.” In other words, it would not longer be possible to buy empty brass casings that Georgia Arms could then clean, quickly reload, and sell to the public at a low price.

When I spoke to Shipley, who had been accustomed to buying spent brass in increments of fifteen tons from the DOD, he said, “This portended higher prices because it required us to either mutilate perfectly good brass when we picked it up from a military base or have a DOD employee travel with us (and the brass) to verify that we did indeed mutilate it at a another site.”

Once mutilated, Georgia Arms would have had to melt the brass down, re-alloy it (casings for each caliber require a specific alloy blend that can sustain the pressures for that caliber), and then re-shape it into the proper casing for whichever caliber they were manufacturing. Said Shipley: “Such a process would add approximately $90 to the cost of one thousand rounds of 9mm ammunition right off the bat.

Fortunately, the public outcry against this DOD maneuver was so great that the order to mutilate all brass was rescinded after just five days. However, those five days were enough to contribute to another problem the government had been causing since November 2008 – namely, fear of an all out Obama-led assault on guns and ammo.
Speaking to this fear, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, said: “You can go to gun stores all over the country and many of them will have a picture of President Obama hanging on the wall. However, when you get up close to the picture and look at the caption on the bottom, instead of saying ‘President’ it says ‘Gun Salesman of the Year.’”

Pratt said gun owners are rightly leery of this administration. Obama supports the new California law that will require every semi-automatic pistol sold in that state to come equipped with a special firing mechanism that makes a distinctive mark – a “fingerprint” – on every bullet casing it fires. And currently, some Democrats in the House of Representatives want to take that law a step further and enact legislation that would force ammunition companies to place serial numbers on every shell casing they manufacture.

Let me just say that if you think ammunition is scarce and expensive now, wait till manufacturers have to put a serial number on every casing and maintain records containing the names, addresses, etc., of everyone who purchases such casings.

No wonder Pratt said: “None of this is about safety. Rather, it’s about finding ways to create an ammo and gun registry that will allow the government to finally figure out which son got daddy’s gun when daddy passed away.”

And while the government is doing its part to make ammunition harder to find, either directly, via episodes like the one between Georgia Arms and the DOD, or indirectly, by scaring citizens to death through anti-gun posturing that has caused a run on ammo sales, the market plays a role as well. With demand outpacing supply the market sustains higher prices for ammo under Obama than it was able to sustain for that same ammo during the presidency of a pro-gun politician like George W. Bush.

Add to this the fact that we’re now sending the majority of the lead from our recycled car batteries to China, instead of selling that lead to ammunition manufacturers who can cheaply reclaim it to make affordable bullets for their casings, and it’s no wonder consumers are scrambling to find ammunition and then paying a fortune for it when they do.

Did I fail to mention that millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition are currently being diverted to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now as well? While this is understandable, it further highlights the fact that we gun owners are in a tight spot, as far as getting ammunition for our guns is concerned.

With all these variables affecting the availability of ammunition, this would be a great time to join a group like Gun Owners of America. By so doing we would assure the politicians in D.C. that if they use their offices to further deny us bullets for our guns, we will use the voting booth to deny them the very offices they now hold.


HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins holds a Ph.D. in U.S. Military History from Texas Tech University. He will be a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal during the summer of 2010.