Alexander's Column

American Patriots and Guns

All Patriots Are Obligated to Be Armed and Ready

By Mark Alexander · Nov. 29, 2012
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” –Joseph Story

On the most recent “Black Friday,” the day after Thanksgiving, which has become the biggest commercial sales day of the year, despite the continuing economic decline, there were record sales in one notable product category: Guns – 154,873 to be precise. However, after Barack Hussein Obama disgracefully politicized the murders of children in Newtown, Connecticut in mid-December, using that tragedy as fodder to call for new gun restrictions, the Black Friday record was broken again.

The top 10 record gun sales days have occurred since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, and gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last four years. (Perhaps if Obama is really opposed to gun ownership, he should resign!) According to a worldwide survey conducted the year before Obama’s election, though the United States had only 5% of the world’s population, Americans owned 50% of the world’s guns. Of course, unlike virtually every other nation, Americans are ensured the incontrovertible right to arm themselves.

The current estimate of legally and privately held guns in the U.S. is more than 250 million (the average gun-owning household having three guns).

With that as a backdrop, I was asked this week if Patriots have an obligation to arm themselves – to be gun owners, and be proficient at the use of arms. I thought at first the question was rhetorical, but after some consideration, I realize that there are millions of grassroots Patriots who are NOT among the 60 million plus Patriots who are already law-abiding gun owners.

Apparently, the question needs to be addressed, as the answer may not be as obvious to some folks as it should be. By way of responding to this question, let me first briefly reiterate the historical and enduring case for gun ownership, which is as relevant today and tomorrow as it was at the dawn of our national founding.

There are two foundational tenets of Essential Liberty that all American Patriots must understand and embrace in order to sustain Liberty and extend it to the next generation.

First, it is “self-evident” that Liberty is an “unalienable right,” innately assured as “endowed by our Creator.” In other words, it is not awarded by men or government; it is the birthright of all people.

Second, as history records countless examples of men using the power of government to arbitrarily revoke Liberty and invoke tyranny, our Founders understood that, in the words of John Adams, “liberty must at all hazards be supported.” Adams continued, “We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”

Thus, all American Patriots today, those imbued with the spirit of Liberty that has motivated Patriots since 1776, must be prepared to support and defend both individual and corporate Liberty, to secure the Rule of Law over the rule of men.

Of the ability to defend Liberty, James Madison wrote, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” (Federalist No. 46)

To ensure that advantage, our Founders enumerated a constitutional prohibition on government interference with that barrier, the Second Amendment, affirming, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

In his exhaustive “Commentaries on the Constitution,” Madison’s Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

In other words, the Second Amendment is not about “the tradition of hunting” as Barack Obama claimed recently, unless he was referring to hunting those who infringe on the inalienable rights of man. Of course, Liberty is the antithesis of statism, which is why Obama and his socialist Democrat cadres are endeavoring to undermine the Second Amendment. (Obama’s failed “Fast and Furious” gun control is a fine example of that endeavor.)

Obama has asserted erroneously, “The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control, [but] it doesn’t pass because there is this huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators think and are willing to act upon.” His disdain for grassroots gun owners was summed up in his unguarded remarks to campaign donors in 2008, when he said that 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.”

Endeavoring to close that gap, every time there is tragic mass murder where the assailant used a gun, Democrats offer the disingenuous rationale that violence is a “gun problem” rather than a cultural problem. Of course it’s easier to blame guns than culture, and that serves the Left’s political agenda.

The tragic attack on young students, teachers and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown is a case in point.

Before the bodies of murdered children had been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary, Barack Obama was, shamefully, stacking up the coffins of innocent kids to use as a platform for his disarmament agenda, which he and his socialist cadres will conceal behind a thin façade of “concern for public safety.”

Just one paragraph into his brief remarks about the murders in Newtown, Obama tearfully exclaimed, “We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. … We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

New York Demo Rep. Jerrold Nadler was less discreet in his insistence that Obama use the deaths of these children to advance the Left’s gun prohibition agenda: “I think we will be there if the president exploits it.” Sen. Charles Schumer added, “I think we could be at a tipping point … where we might get something done.”

Within hours of the deaths, Sen. Dianne Feinstein promised, “I’m going to introduce in the Senate – and the same bill will be introduced in the House – a bill to get … weapons of war off the streets.” Of course, Feinstein, et al., know that the use of so-called “weapons of war” as murder instruments is exceedingly rare – less than 2/10ths of one percent of all homicides in America occur on school grounds, and less than three percent of all homicides are committed with “assault weapons.” So what is their real agenda?

At a vigil in Newtown two days after the attack, Obama again politicized the attack, framing his remarks around his gun-prohibition agenda. He asked rhetorically, “Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose? If we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. And we will have to change. What choice do we have? Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

The day after that speech, in my daily email from the White House came a link from Obama’s “senior advisor,” David Axelrod, with a video link to Obama’s vigil remarks posted on his “Forward” campaign Web site (and we thought the election was over). Astoundingly, the video was framed inside a page seeking donations to Obama’s campaign fund.

For the record, Connecticut already has a ban on “assault weapons,” and the Newtown school was already a “gun-free zone,” but that didn’t prevent the murders of these precious children and six adults. In fact, the assailant violated more than 20 laws in the commission of this horrific crime. Also for the record, since the “assault rifle ban” of 1994 expired in 2004, gun ownership has increased and crime has decrease.

Any honest American should be deeply offended by politicians who are so calloused that they would use the deaths of innocents as political fodder for their agenda. Could Obama not exercise the most basic decency and allow time for genuine grief to pass before exploiting the blood of innocents? Obviously not, according to the first chapter in his political playbook: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

It is no small irony that the political party that has made killing children prior to birth a pillar of their platform expresses such indignation when a sociopath places so little value on life that he murders children. Of course, it’s easier to kill children who are faceless – and I am certain that in the eyes of the sociopathic killer in Newtown, his victims also had no faces.

Further, acknowledging that the majority of murders and other violent crimes in our country are the direct result of social and cultural degradation on urban welfare plantations would be, first and foremost, an indictment of the socialist welfare state advocated by Democrats. Thus, they call for more gun control – on top of the 20,000 gun control laws now on the books.

Fact is, on average almost 50 people are murdered every day, two-thirds of them with guns. It is statistically notable that about one-third of murders are not committed with guns, and moreover, blacks and Latinos commit a grossly disproportionate number of all murders and the victims are predominantly blacks and Latinos.

For example, the very weekend that Obama and his race hustlers attempted to politicize the shooting of Trayvon Martin by “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman earlier this year, the Chicago Sun-Times (Obama’s hometown paper) reported that in just 48 hours, 10 people were murdered and at least 40 others were seriously wounded. Most of the assailants and victims were black or Latino, but not a word from Obama about those murders.

Moreover, as of this date in 2012, 62 young people between the age of 6 and 18 have been murdered in Chicago this year, a city with the toughest gun restrictions in America. Not a word from Obama about any of those deaths because they reflect the aforementioned cultural problems created by Leftist social policies, not a “gun problem.”

Even Karen Lewis, head of the Chicago Teachers Union, commented on the commercialization of the Newtown tragedy: “There might have been a time where ‘politicizing’ tragic events, especially mass shootings, was thought to be in poor taste. That has changed with the 24/7 news cycle that continues to focus far too much time and energy on the perpetrator of the massacre than that of our precious victims.”

Lewis said Obama’s education policies “kill and disenfranchise children.” “We in Chicago have been the victims of their experiments on our children since the current secretary of Education [Arne Duncan] ‘ran’ the Chicago Public School system.”

Notwithstanding the fact that violence is not a “gun problem,” given Obama’s disgraceful exploitation of the Newtown deaths, expect to see aggressive second term proposals endeavoring to implement bold encroachments on the Second Amendment.

Additionally, watch Obama’s effort to spin the Newtown attack in order to rally two-thirds of the Senate for passage of the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty regulating small arms. The ATT is a Trojan Horse. While it ostensibly exempts domestic gun sales and ownership in the U.S., with the stroke of a pen, it could implement severe gun restrictions and even confiscations – an end run on the Second Amendment that would provide political cover for gun-grabbing Leftists in the Senate and House.

Indeed, as summed up by Sen. Rand Paul, “The day after his re-election, Obama’s UN delegation voted for a renewed effort to pass the Small Arms Treaty. This effort by globalists to undermine our Constitution is set to reconvene March 18th-28th in order to pass the final version of the treaty that will be sent to the Senate for ratification. Make no mistake, they will ultimately register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens. Not long ago, Obama told Sarah Brady from the anti-gun Brady Campaign, ‘I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.’”

In regard to gun confiscation, I recommend that Obama pick up an American History text, one that has not been “revised” by teacher or librarian unions, and read about the first American Revolution. He will find that it commenced with “the shot heard round the world,” as immortalized by poet Ralph Waldo Emerson – a shot fired by Patriots at the Massachusetts governor’s enforcers, who were sent to Concord with orders to confiscate and destroy militia arms. There is a subtle lesson there…

(Sidebar: On the subject of revisions, next week Obama’s UN delegation will meet with the UN agency overseeing global telecommunications, the International Telecommunications Union, to revise Internet regulations.)

Clearly the surge in gun sales and ownership over the last four years has been driven by Obama’s agenda to implement new “gun control” measures, which are, of course, not about guns but about control, as tragically demonstrated by the appalling record of genocide meted out by tyrants toward those who had no means of self defense.

According to gun-rights expert, Professor Raymond Kessler, J.D., “In truth, attempts to regulate the civilian possession of firearms have five political functions. They increase citizen reliance on government and tolerance of increased police powers and abuse; help prevent opposition to the government; facilitate repressive action by government and its allies; lessen the pressure for major or radical reform; and can be selectively enforced against those perceived to be a threat to government.”

So, given that Liberty must be supported and defended at all hazards, and given the current assault on gun ownership, consider again the question, “Do Patriots have an obligation to arm themselves – to be gun owners, and be proficient at the use of arms?”

The answer is, emphatically and absolutely, YES. Moreover, I would argue that it is the responsibility of all gun-owning Patriots to educate their like-minded family and friends about the overarching rationale for gun ownership – the ability to defend Liberty – and to encourage them to become responsible gun owners.

I know many Patriots who, since Obama’s election, have become first-time gun owners. The fact that 49 states authorize carry permits, 41 of those being “shall issue” states providing on-demand concealed-carry permits to law-abiding citizens, has encouraged that trend. The lone state denying the right to carry is, naturally, Obama’s state of residence, Illinois.

In recent years, I’ve proudly encouraged and assisted dozens of Patriot friends to become responsible gun owners. One of those “new” gun owners was my wife, who, along with six other women friends, took the required training and now has her carry permit. Each of my children is also a gun owner. (My oldest son, an Air Force Cadet, is an outstanding shooter. The weapons my two minor children use only come out under strict supervision, but my 13-year-old already shoots a very tight pattern at 100 meters with his LMT M4.)

One of my wife’s friends said that when some of her liberal family members came to visit recently (one of those tragic “mixed families”), they got wind that she now owns not one, but three guns. Her brother inquired, “Why would anyone own three guns?” Without missing a beat, she replied, “Because I can!” (That has got to rank first among the most cutting and concise rebuttals I have ever heard.)

And on that note, three other friends, who grew up in former Soviet satellite states, told me that after becoming U.S. citizens (the old fashioned way – legally), the first thing they did was obtain their right-to-carry permits. They each have a fuller appreciation for that right.

So, how do dedicated Patriots who are not familiar with firearms make the leap to gun ownership and proficiency?

I received a letter this week from a reader among our Patriot ranks, who included a brief history of how his whole family made the transition from non-gun owners to never leaving home without one. I have included a brief excerpt of his story in order that it might help others make that transition.

He writes, “Growing up in Chicago, where guns were outlawed and only outlaws had guns, when the topic of guns came up, my parents replied, ‘Only gangsters and hunters carry guns – and we are neither.’” Given this prohibitive backdrop, I invite you to read the rest of his Second Amendment testimony.

For the record, when it comes to Liberty, I would much prefer constitutional restoration over insurrectionif the former is achievable. (I’ve been around a few revolutions in Africa and the Middle East, so I’m well aware of the violence that accompanies the latter course.) But as current day American Patriots, we all have an obligation to not only stand ready to defend our family and property, but moreover to defend Liberty.

I’ll leave you, then, with these words of wisdom on both the individual right of self-defense, and the corporate responsibility to uphold Liberty.

Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In the case of those who would give up Essential Liberty for nothing more than the perception of a little temporary safety with more gun prohibitions, indeed they deserve neither Liberty nor safety and, ultimately, will lose both.

Quoting 18th-century Italian jurist and philosopher Cesare Beccaria in his “Commonplace Book,” Jefferson wrote, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Regarding our corporate obligation in defense of Liberty, Jefferson wrote, “What country can preserve its liberties, if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

And ponder this from a man whose name is synonymous with peace: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” –Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi from his autobiography.

View all comments


Gilbert Doan in Ardmore, PA said:

I suggest you investigate and report on the development (and first
graduation of young volunteers) (and heavy-duty arming) of the "Homeland"
"Security" militia.
Shades of the FDJ!
I'm glad the Second Amendment was worded so carefully!

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

"The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late."

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Claire Black in Lovelady, TX replied:

Funny you should mention the FEMA Corps or Corpse as the president would say. I just read about their September 2012 graduation yesterday. Their main purpose is "solely devoted to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery". Has anyone heard whether or not these 18-24 year olds have been helping on the East Coast after Hurricane Sandy? I haven't. Yet that's their whole purpose to exist ... or is it?

Sunday, December 2, 2012 at 12:32 PM

jwright673 in Wheeling, WV replied:

Gilbert, I'm sad to say I forwarded a complete article on the Homeland Security Militia's first graduating class to Michele Malkin and never got a reply. I agree with you, this is a scary move. It is right in line with obama's vision prior to the 2008 election in which he talked about a national police force of sorts. I hope the Post will thoroughly investigate this militia so obama's motives can be held up to the light.

Sunday, December 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

There is no mention of this Militia on the DHS website. Hmmmm.

Monday, December 3, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Tim K in Raleigh said:

All one needs to do is to watch video footage of citizen uprisings throughout the third word.

The governments' weapon of choice? light and heavy firearms.

The citizens' weapon of choice? rocks, stones and Coke bottles filled with gasoline.

Fascists want an unarmed citizenry. Read in to that whatever you will.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

richard in Tacoma, WA replied:

Tim, Your point is abundantly clear. If you've ever seen any film footage of the ocupation of France during WWII you'd notice that in the early days of the Resistance Movement the French were armed with wine bottles of gasoline, rocks, and anything else they could lay their hands on, until they could capture a Geman Mauser or Schmeiser. England sent out a plea as well for guns from the United States which we responded to in fine style. We have learned from this that when you need a gun, it's too late to build one.

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Luis F. Sanchez in Bay Shore,New York said:

leave my guns alone,tyvm

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Luis F. Sanchez in Bay Shore,New York said:


Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

John in Kennedy said:

Anyone fearing or wishing abolishment of the 2nd amendment casts doubt and lack of reasonable compliance on themselves.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Stan....S.C, in Spartanburg said:

This Usurped POTUS may have Gotten (Not Won) re-elected by HOOK or CROOK, but He be Damned if He even tries to Remove my Firearms with His same Tactic !! Semper Fidelis

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

John in Kennedy said:

Everyone wants protection. The 2nd amendment offers that.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

H&K P30L does a better job

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Linda in Apple Valley, Ca said:

No one should be surprised about the upcoming UN vote to authorized the removal of American citizens gus. This has been coming for a long time. Fast and Furious was nothing more than a plan hatched by Hillary (card carrying communist)Clinton to use it to point out the 'reason' to take guns away from citizens of this country. Brian Terry ended up loosing his life and it exposed the government's plan. Until people in this country stand up and take a stand, the elected in DC will continue to erode ALL of our liberties and rights given to us by the Constitution. As long as Americans remain silent the treasonous acts being committed by those in power, we can expect soon the Constitution of the United States to be 'declared' null and void.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Marc Twang in Waterford, CA said:

Make a 3" x 5" or smaller Sticker out of the "Support and Defend" artwork.
Let me know when you do!!!

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

JDB Esq in CA/VA replied:

I like it, too, probably because I have at least one each of the firearms pictured.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 2:58 PM

KenC in Missouri said:

How could the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty possibly trump the Second Amendment? Even if approved through Congress?

Certainly the NICS is already keeping track of who is purchasing what. Will it ultimately come to needing to bury our firearms and ammunition?

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Dr. M. G. Phillips in Fredericksburg, TX replied:

Yeah, and how many other portionso f the Constitution are being ignored or run over? We have a government who no longers believes that the Constitution is the basis of all our laws.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, KY replied:

The Constitution is not the basis for our laws as they are natural God given rights and cannot be taken away only relinquished. The Constitution only reiterates what already belongs to the People, it is meant as a restriction on government.

Monday, December 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Stephen in NH replied:

No one is to blame but the american people. The Constitution is a piece of paper; incapable of defending itself. It was up to the people to defend it. They failed. And their apathy has come back to haunt them.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 6:14 AM

Stan....S.C, in Spartanburg replied:

No Treaty signed by this POTUS are anyone else is worth the paper it's written on. Any conflict with the Constitution, which this is, has to be ratified by Congress and then presented to All the States for Ratification. Then a possibility the USSC would get involved. This Traitor, Usurper POTUS seems to Not have a Clue of the Fortitude of the American People ! We are not going to be Intimidated by a few Chicago Thug tactics ! Semper Fidelis

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Not quite. Treaties with other countries need to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate, and are not referred to the states for ratification. Only amendments to the constitution require state ratification (by 3/4 of the states).

Monday, December 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

oh Hell in co replied:

The UN is not a country.

Monday, December 3, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Dave in Wichita said:

When is the season on 'statist progressives' and is there a bag limit?

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM

JDB Esq in CA/VA replied:

Until they're extinct?

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 2:59 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:


Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 4:36 PM

antiglobalist in denton Co. Tx said:

This imposter, marxist president wants t control every aspect of the lives of every citzen in this land. The only way that will happen is to disarme us like hitler did. There are many that will resist that action. In fact there is 160 million of us and that number is growing every day. Semper Fi

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Scott in Camino, CA in Camino, California said:

To quote some of our Founding Fathers;

Thomas Jefferson; “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

The only thing between us and tyranical government, where all you do is controlled, is our guns. Once guns are gone you will be treated like nothing more than mudsill to the ruling elite.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

“The only defense against violent evil people are good people who are more skilled at violence.” ~ Rory Miller ~

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Susan H. in Calif. said:

I am 65, mother of 3, grandmother of 6. I have never owned a gun, but have been an NRA member for many years. I also know how to handle a handgun. I am proficient with a 9mm Ruger. If I am forced to accept gun control, it will be on my terms - a nice tight pattern in the proper place. I would die fighting for the right to keep and bear arms, not just for myself, bu for every patriotic American. And who knows, maybe I'll get my first gun this year.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

Live to fight, make the SOB die that would have your Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
There are more rights and Liberty to preserve through force than the 2nd amendment

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Ron Lietke, unabashed patriot in Vancouver, WA replied:

Susan, I respectfully suggest that you forget the "maybe" and change this year to "today, if not sooner". Also, take a few like-minded friends with you and encourage them to do the same. If the headlines continued to report a giant increase in the number of background checks and CWP's issued, we might avoid a lot of bloodshed. As Ronald Reagan put it, negotiate from a position of strength. Let the left half abhor guns; but let's make sure all available patriots are armed to the teeth! Hopefully, then, no one would dare try to take our rights away, and if, sadly, they did, it would be swiftly over.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Dioneikes in Colorado replied:

@ Susan - What?! No heater?! Best be buying a couple. I say that you can never have enough personal protection.

I am ready for the modern day Lexington and Concord brawls when they occur. In fact we can all heed the words of Capt. John Parker as they echo forth over 237 years -

"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
Captain John Parker to the company assembled on Lexington Green.


Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

durabo in Prescott Valley, AZ said:

Hitler invaded my home in Paris on my third birthday, May 10, 1940. After a year-and-a-half of Nazi occupation, we fled to Buenos Aires, where - again - we experienced another repressive socialistic regime, under Juan Peron, who, BTW, was married to Evita, Moochelle's precursor. From both countries I have memories of enforcement teams kicking down doors and dragging people away for the sin of -GASP! - not having registered their guns for later confiscation. I am prepared for the civil war that is sure to break out when Comrade Dear and Glorious Ruler-For-Life's goons come. It's high time for 1776, part 2.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM