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.

Appeal_patriots_day_7

View all comments

372 Comments

Rosabel Baldwin in Kodiak, Alaska said:

In respects to the UN Gun Treaty in 'discussion', what ever happened to America's 'MONROE DOCTRINE'? i

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Dorothy Murphy in Illinois replied:

GOOD question!

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Ron Lietke, unabashed patriot in Vancouver, WA replied:

Hmmm. "Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." I'd say more ammo for our side! (Did someone mention "precedent"?

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

John Q Citizen in Colorado said:

The Citizen family is proud to be one of those "black friday" purchasers. The youngest (10) will be the proud shooter of a new .22 LR. He has previously shot others but this will be HIS at the appropriate age and I hope he will pass it on to his posterity. Every Citizen in this house either owns, is being trained or has shown proficiency with a firearm.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Zarack in Williamsburg, VA 23188 said:

I stand, with pride, among those who will not surrender my rights to gun ownership by Americans. I also will vigorously defend the 2d Amendment of the Constitution and defend this country from invaders, foreign and domestic.
I live in the First Colony in this "New World" (1604) and have worked at interpreting what that means, and the means it was acquired by those who framed; and had the courage of their convictions to see, the Constitution of the United States of America declared and avowed as the Rule of Law in this emerging free land.

It is conspiciously factual that hundreds of thousands of our fore-bearers and; in fact, our current generations have and are engaged in a variety of wars and in the fight with terroristic factions world-wide to continue to defend that hard won freedom for America.
Paraphrasing the words of a great American; Charlton Heston, they will have to "...pry my gun from my dead hands" to succeed in disarming me.
May God Bless America and all true Americans.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Rosabel Baldwin in Kodiak, Alaska said:

Sorry...my comment didn't finish. Hit the wrong key.
After my comment about the MONROE DOCTRINE being forgotten? Why is it forgotten?
And where are the 'men' we elected? Do they automatically change to wimps when t he win offices?

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Laird in SC said:

Somewhat tangentially, I would like to point out that there are a lot of us who do not have concealed carry permits, and who buy our guns in private transactions not subject to the government's background check system, because we want to be completely off the government's radar on this matter. If the government should ever decide to start confiscating guns people with CCPs and known gun ownership will be the first to receive a visit from the feds.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

and that will be the new Lexington / Concord

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Amen to that, any federal official required to go gun confiscating should first know an illegal order when submitted, and recognizing also the suicide mission they would be sent on.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Kenny Kimler in Bossier City, Louisiana replied:

What you state is true but paying a visit is one thing and conficasting my weapons is another matter.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

G Dub45 in Lee's Summit, MO replied:

LM - I agree with you. It is a shame that my and my wife's weapons apparently were stolen from our house when I was in the back mowing the rear yard. I am somewhat embarrassed that I have not even filed a police report. They would only laugh that I left my garage door open. Having never placed them on a list with my P&C insurance agent, I cannot file a claim for their replacement. Sad isn't it that I will not be able to defend the rights of my Communist neighbor if he should ever be accosted.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Larry Hutson in Carmel, IN said:

Obama and his minions know that abridging the Second Amendment and outlawing gun ownership is really not doable now or in the forseeable future. But I do think they are about to change the emphasis of their attack from gun ownership to that necessary ingedient called ammunition. A person can own 10-20 guns, but if it impossible to get ammunition for them, what good are they? And, I daresay, ammunition is not part of the Second Amendment!

LW

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

reload your own, stock all ingrediants.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Ron Lietke, unabashed patriot in Vancouver, WA replied:

I'd be willing to bet, given the right case (e.g., Chicago's new gun & ammo tax) sent to SCOTUS b/4 obummer gets to put new members on it, could see a ruling which set precedent of ammo being part of 2A.

That being said, all patriots should be encouraged to write all constitutional defenders still on SCOTUS to hang in there till the bum is gone, and praying that we can get a conservative POTUS elected instead.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Mike in Wyoming said:

My only question; 223 or 308. Which ammo would be most accessible in a time of crisis?

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Randy in Montana replied:

Whichever you have the most of Mike!!

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM

John Q Citizen in Colorado replied:

There is a distinct possibility that a lot of 5.56 will by lying around. The good surplus kind too.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, KY replied:

I must remember not to drink anything while I am reading P.P.

Monday, December 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Cheaper than Dirt, lots of cheap bulk ammo available, if you buy now, makes a great Christmas gift. I just recieved my bulk order of 308 Lake City M80. They also had a great bargain on Eversafe MREs, I got several cases of those as well........

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

shoot in Michigan City In. replied:

both of those are a good choice use the calibers they use this is where your next ammo will come from, 12 gauge shotgun for close quarters, nothing like 12 gauge 00 buck keep in mind don't hesitate to pull the trigger they wont!

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, KY replied:

How come nobodies asking about 30.06? it's a wonderful round.

Monday, December 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM

G Dub45 in Lee's Summit, MO replied:

Mike - very quickly learn to and purchase equipment and components to reload - then crank that press like there will be no tomorrow.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Randy in Montana said:

I have often wondered if the posters or stickers with the "Protected by 2nd Amendment" or a similar message are a good idea overall. Yes, they would probably make a potential burglar hesitate if he/she (don't want to be sexist here) was thinking of breaking in at night. However, if there was a way to determine that no one was home it might also be an advertisement to come in and steal the weapons. Perhaps it is just my paranoid thinking.....

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

Gun Safe, Home security, DOGS.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Brian D in Missouri said:

Just one question.....does anyone believe that the gun industry has used fear-based marketing (Obama is coming for your guns!) to manipulate the conservative market to increase their sales!

Wasn't Obama coming for our guns 4 years ago? 4 years later; no significant change in gun control laws and no real efforts to do so. Where I live, we have more gun freedom, with right to carry permits.

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. However, I am not going to let that belief in the Constitution leave me susceptible to the gun industry's exploitation for profit. We are being played by the industry and its media outlets.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Obamao is gunning for your guns, you ignore the threat at your own peril.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Brian D in Missouri replied:

wjm....I think you missed my point. ...and don't worry about me, I have plenty of guns and in no immediate peril.

Maybe I should clarify.

People incapable of critical or free thought; those unwilling to use logic or recognize hype and ignore facts are destined to be manipulated and exploited. Can you not even consider the possibility that that the gun industry is using the re-election of Obama as the means to stir up fear and increase sales/profits?

Again, wasn't he going to take our guns 4 years ago? What happened? Nothing! We had a congresswomen shot and there was not one serious piece of gun control legislation voted on or even introduced. I need to see some facts, before I buy into this hype and propaganda.

My thoughts. Messing with the 2nd Amendment is political suicide. Obama and the Democrats know it. They may make a few statements to keep the liberal-left happy, but that will be about it. As long as we stay vigilant, the 2nd Amendment will be safe. You want to buy a gun, do it. But don't just buy it because you believe they will be taken away. That makes absolutely no sense.

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 8:44 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Fast and Furious, Operating "under the radar", the United Nations Small arms treaty. Obamao has shown nothing but contempt for the second amendment, and now he has been given more "flexibility". If you think his agenda isn't to destroy America, destroy the Constitution, and take over, it is you who make no sense.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Ron Lietke, unabashed patriot in Vancouver, WA replied:

Brian, with all due respect, what leftist planted that idea in your head...you are indeed naively paranoid of your supposedly conspiretory gun industry. While they are all surely pleased with the business, neither Remington nor Winchester, or Sterns & Ruger nor Smith & Wesson, or any other of our fine firearms fabricators manufactured this issue for marketing purposes. No, this issue has been raised by individual attentive, vigilant patriots through forums like this, organizations like the 2AF, and NRA, and conversations in homes, gardens, woods, boats, bars and barbershops. People like Kennedy, O'brady, Feinstein and Obama--and don't forget Bloomberg & Emanuel & the rest of those mayors--really do exist--and there are many more of them--and just because you don't meet them in Missouri--where I, too, lived for 18 years--they really do believe nobody but LOA and MIlitary (if them!) should have access to guns--and they want nothing less than to take all of them away--yours, too.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Brian D in Missouri replied:

Ron, I did not say I don't believe there is a faction that wants to minimize and control access to guns. Guess the gun industry is just lucky. If I were them, I would vote Democrat. It's great for business.

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Ron Lietke, unabashed patriot in Vancouver, WA replied:

Brian, as I indicated yesterday, its not just obummer, e.g.,

“This is just the beginning.”

Those are the words uttered recently out of the mouth of a top aide to billionaire anti-gun NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

He was referring to the more than $10 million Bloomberg spent out of his own vast fortune attacking pro-gun candidates during the 2012 election cycle.

Gun owners should consider Bloomberg's “pocket change” no less than a warning shot aimed at destroying our Second Amendment rights.

Bloomberg has spent the last decade pouring millions of dollars into building up the gun control lobby and his gun-grabbing gang, Mayor Against Guns.

He's been refining and perfecting his line of attack waiting for the right time to pounce and destroy your Second Amendment rights.

With Barack Obama set to serve four more years in office, you can bet Bloomberg and his anti-gun cohorts are feeling emboldened -- scheming RIGHT NOW to enact gun control.

In the past, he's supported ammo bans, magazine bans and a new so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”

He's even used the blood of innocents to advance his anti-gun agenda.

And Bloomberg has supported scores of politicians at the local, state and federal levels who would like nothing more than to strip our gun rights away piece by piece -- it not all in once.

By establishing a network of anti-gun allies in all 50 states and in Congress, his plan is crystal clear . . . attack gun rights at all levels of government.

With billions of dollars in the bank, the millions of dollars he has spent in recent years appear to be just a drop in the bucket compared to what he is planning to unleash in the coming weeks and months.

Make no mistake about it, the gun control lobby is well-funded and increasingly more organized.

Bloomberg and his billionaire anti-gun buddies like George Soros can pour unlimited amounts of money into efforts to restrict our gun rights at any given time.

And he's made it clear -- this is only the beginning in his war on the

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Chan Bates in Utah said:

Re: Patriots' obligation to own guns

Rather than, "Why own a gun?", the more apropos question is, "Why would you NOT own a gun?"

God empowers each of us to choose good over evil. It is spiritually and morally indefensible to allow evil to triumph over innocence. The possession and use of a gun for self defense--against criminals, including government agents who would abrogate God-given freedoms--is first a deterrent, and second an immediate and effective response to those who would threaten life and liberty. When great numbers of individuals can competently stand up for their rights, powerfully assisted by the threat of armed resistance, tyranny is held in check. Lucky for us, that is what is happening in the US right now.

As to any national or international gun confiscation scheme becoming law and enforced in the US, the Eighteenth and Twenty-first Amendments regarding alcohol prohibition set a minor precedence for what would follow an attempt at serious gun restrictions in the US. What law enforcement officers or military troops would go out into US society and try to enforce such laws? Oh. New Orleans.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Charles in BrighamCity,Utah said:

I've been a shooter most of my life --as a kid,me, my .22 and bike were often heading to the city dump --lots of targets. The Army taught me to shoot the M-1 rifle, and the M1911 pistol. When I was released from active duty, I shot the M1911 in my Army Reserve unit team. After moving to Utah, I got involved in high power rifle competiotion, shooting not only at the club range but also out of state,The NRA Whittington Center, and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio.(12 years). I found out about an excellent shooting school, Front Sight (www.frontsight.com) and attended a four-day school in the use of a defensive pistol -- not only the shooting but the laws concerning the use of defensive shooting. I have my carry permit for Utah (Being now 84 yeard old, I don't get around like I used to, but I still shoot the pistol at the range at least monthly and more ofter when the opportunities arise. The formal training I received at Front Sight has made a believer out of me, and I never leave home without my pistol. I also know that Federal buildings are non-gun, and acknowledge the signs that some businesses display that don't want firearms on the premises (I just don't trade there). Front Sight taught me to draw, acurately aim and fire two shots in 1.5 seconds. All shooters should access the Front Sight web site and get some invaliable training from experts. There are other schools in the country too, and there might be one near where you-all live.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM

jkdriss in oklahoma said:

Its starting now. A representative from Georgia is suggesting a constitutional amendment should be made so the government can have the power to regulate speech. He claims that corporations need to be regulated because it is they that control speech. His number is 202 225 1605

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

StevoInHawaii in Kailua Kona, HI said:

You've got it wrong. There is a loophole. The State of Hawaii ~does~ have a provision for conceal/carry, but guess what? They don't give out any permits! It's virtually impossible to get one. I'm sure we're not the only state with this problem.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

NY is a "may" issue state. Even if you pass all the requirements they can and do deny a permit.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/new-york-federal-appeals-court-upholds-concealed-carry-restrictions/

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

I might add, StevoInHawaii, that Arkansas and many other states are "shall" issue states. If one passes all the requirements (training, State and Federal background checks, fees, etc.) then the permit MUST be issued. Some tin horn state or county official can no deny you the permit.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

lol - That should read "can not deny"

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Robert Augeri in E.Northport, NY said:

I TRULY BELIEVE IF THE OBAMA, HILLARY SIGN THIS UN AGREEMENT ON ARMS AND ALSO ON CHILDREN THAT HAVE DIFFENCIES IN BIRTH I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO RISE UP. HE IS BYING PASSING CONGRESS AND THE SENATE BY SUBVERTING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. ONLY TIME WILL TELL WHETHER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL STAND FOR HIS AND HERS SUBVERSION TO OUR CONSTITUTION. THE UN SHOULD BE DISBANED FROM THE US . MOST IN THE UN COME FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE DICATORS AND THEY ARE GOING TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT IS GOOD FOR US. THEY STOLE BILLIONS AND NOTHING HAPPENED. IN PLAIN ENGLISH DUMP THE U;N. PS WE WRITE OUR REPRESENATIVES AND ALL OF THE DEMOCARTS GIVE LIP SERVICE. PLUS I BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR ALLOWING THIS ILLEGAL,MUSLIM,LIAR, FOR GETTING INTO THE HIGHEST OFFICE WITHOUT A CHECK ON HIS SEALED RECORDS,

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

Any treaty they sign will have to be approved by 2/3 Senate.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM

John in Tucson, AZ said:

Obuma may continue to usurp our rights and liberties until he decides to
take our guns...then it will hit the fan with millions of men (many if not most of which are veterans) say not only NO, but HELL NO!. At that point in time
the military must make a commitment...side with the gun owners or continue to commit suicide. This may be the only option left..Hang on to your CB radio it may be the only way left to communicate.

John

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 1:05 PM