Alexander's Column

"I Will Not Comply"

Obama's Assault on the Second Amendment

By Mark Alexander · Jan. 10, 2013
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” –Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Patriots, I call on you to pledge: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as ‘endowed by our Creator,’ enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Sign the 2A pledge!

Though tens of millions of American Patriots have already said it, the time has come for one of us to go to the mountaintop and shout it so the whole world can hear it.

I hereby make this public declaration: In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will “support and defend” Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

What does this mean?

I will neither register with, nor surrender to the government, any weapon in my possession. I further declare that I am not in possession of weapon, weapon component or ammunition that has not been lawfully acquired for lawful purposes, including defense of self and family, home and property, and most importantly, defense of Liberty in accordance with the Second Amendment.

I have spoken with my family and our Patriot Team about the potential consequences of this public declaration, both for our families and for our company. They fully understand the implications of my very public declaration of civil disobedience in defense of Liberty and Rule of Law. They understand that I have and will abide, first and foremost, by my oath to support and defend our Constitution – the very oath that Barack Obama and his NeoCom cadres have solemnly sworn, but stand in abject violation of same.

Since publishing the first issue of The Patriot Post more than 16 years ago, I have made clear that one constitutional prohibition on the central government trumps all others, and that is the proscription against federal infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote, in his eminent “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “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.”

Story was James Madison’s appointee to the High Court, and Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, “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.”

Just after Obama’s re-election, I warned that he would attempt to render neutral the only substantive obstacle between Liberty and his avowed political agenda of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” – the Second Amendment.

I noted that, per their standard political playbook, the socialists and their Leftmedia promoters would wait on some tragic murder spree, and, in keeping with Obama’s game plan to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” use that event as fodder to seize guns.

A month after writing those words, a mentally deranged sociopath used a firearm to kill children and adults in a Connecticut elementary school. Before the bodies of murdered children had even been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary, Obama was, shamefully, stacking their coffins to use as a soapbox for his latest and greatest assault on the Second Amendment – a renewed effort to not only ban the future sale of many defensive weapons, but register them in order to eventually confiscate them.

Obama has framed this debate as a contest between “public safety” and the NRA – those who “cling to guns or religion” – and insists that the Second Amendment was instituted to protect “hunting and sport shooting.” He has called for a so-called “assault weapons” ban. I note “so-called” because this legislation would more accurately be described as a “defensive weapons” ban, because such arms are purchased, first and foremost, for defense not assault. Less than one percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with rifles of any type.

Obama claims, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting…” If by “hunting” he means hunting down those who offend Liberty, then he is correct.

Some Leftist governors and legislators have already adopted Obama’s “hunting” misinformation memo. New York’s Andrew Cuomo proposed “the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation” this week, asserting, “We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away peoples' guns. I own a gun. I own a Remington shotgun. I’ve hunted. I’ve shot. That’s not what this is about. It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles. No one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!”

If, by “risk of high-capacity assault rifles,” he means risk that they might be used for their intended purpose – to defend Liberty against the tyranny of socialist politicos and those who do their bidding – then I understand his concern.

The fact is, these weapons, which Obama and his cadres want to eradicate, account for only a tiny fraction of homicides in the U.S. Obama and Biden know that – which is why they have reframed their gun ban rhetoric around saving a few lives rather than many: “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking,“ said Biden.

According to the FBI’s public safety statistics, almost 10 times as many people are murdered annually with knives, hammers and bare hands than are murdered with the type of weapon used in the Connecticut attack. Furthermore, from the time the Senate first banned so-called "assault weapons” in 1994, through the expiration of that ban in 2004 and to the present day, the number of such weapons held by the people has increased by 2.5 million, while murders have dropped by almost 50 percent. In other words, more guns equate to less crime. But Obama is not one to let hard facts interfere with his sacred socialist agenda.

So, why all the focus on so-called “assault weapons” – what is the Left’s real agenda? (That question was rhetorical.)

Patriots, this contest is most assuredly not between public safety and the NRA, but between Leftists and Essential Liberty.

Benjamin Franklin spoke timeless words to this contest: “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, they will, ultimately, lose both.

In addition to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed “comprehensive” ban on a long list of defensive weapons, which she plans to reintroduce in two weeks, Obama appointed Joe Biden to be his executive branch lightning rod for this subterfuge.

Three weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder, who once suggested “we should really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” implied that Obama might use an executive order to undermine the Second Amendment. This week, Joe Biden confirmed that, saying, “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required. It’s critically important that we act.”

On that note, enough is enough.

Liberty is “endowed by our Creator,” not determined by executive decree or congressional legislation or judicial diktat. Liberty is an innate human right. It is a gift from God, not from politicians.

I have, herein, publicly declared that I will not comply with any executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates our Constitution, or the innate human right to defend self and Liberty. I know that there are tens of millions of Patriots who are, likewise, committed. As our Founders affirmed in the last line of the document codifying their rejection of tyranny: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Fellow Patriots, I can handle the consequences of my very public declaration of intent to reject Obama’s assault on the Second Amendment. I am not asking you to make the same public commitment, though I know most of you would step up to the line.

However, I am asking you to join me in your pledge to affirm: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as "endowed by our Creator,” enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.“

Please make that affirmation today and encourage others to do the same.

Sign the 2A pledge!
Appeal_patriots_day_7

View all comments

619 Comments

Bob Apjok in roanoke, va said:

The Constitution declares itself the supreme law, therefore any law or decree that violates the Constitution is not valid. The second amendment is pretty clear, therefore, never, ever give up your arms.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Ancient Warrior in The Great American West replied:

Not quite, Bob. We The People declared the constitution to be the supreme law. And we. and only we, can make it so. That's what it takes, and that's all it takes.

In the past, that has involved some unpleasantness with ordnance discharging, casualties and such, and it may so happen again. It has worked out well so far.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Rich in Oregon replied:

Actually, everything the legislature does is assumed to be Constitutional by the courts. Only when the proper case is properly brought to the proper court can the courts be activated in defense of the Constitution. The courts must declare a case or controversy "Unconstitutional" before it can be ignored. Unfortunately, Obama knows it may take up to 5 years for a challenge to run its course through the courts, so he is not afraid to do the many unconstitutional things he has done.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Dave in San Antonio replied:

Unfortunately Congress has already passed bad Law vs guns (Fed transfers) that O can legally influence to some extent.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Georgia Tiger in Ringgold, GA said:

Is it a concern that 'Big Brother' may be reading the comments? I would be a little wary that he might not like what is said concerning open rebellion, etc. in this forum.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Drifter in Washington, Utah replied:

It is not in the least 'rebellious' to ask that the Contstitution be followed...

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Bob G in Georgia replied:

Absolutely.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Harry Payne in Orem, Utah replied:

It is also not rebellious to require that those leaders, who made a covenant to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as a part of their becoming our leaders, be held to those covenants. Otherwise they must be considered to be invaders and treated as such.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Rachel in CA replied:

AMEN, Harry.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Mark in Florida replied:

Correct Harry, they are considered non-uniformed enemy combatants. I submit that this entire administration falls under that category. They are declaring war on all of us who know and understand our GOD given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As Mark Alexander quoted our founding fathers we to must pick up that same torch and make that same pledge if our liberty and freedom is to survive.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 11:31 PM

i choose liberty in indiana replied:

Amen to that harry, the are breaking the law we are only up holding the law

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM

wisconservative in wis replied:

Do the words "impeachment" and "high crimes and treason" come into play?

Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Mark in Tennessee replied:

It's about time somebody had the balls to speak up. Would you suggest we cower in the corner and let "Big Brother" have his way? This is OUR country, not the government's. I intend to keep it that way. I hope you would do the same. If you're afraid of Big Brother, you've already lost.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Tony in Texas replied:

Agree Mark, we have to do more than spend 30 minutes in the voting booth. If the Rinos would have taken the time to read obamacare we wouldn't have to be eating that either. After thinking about the consequensies of signing this if you don't you might as well give up now. Sooner or latter your going to have to take sides.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Bunny Hacker in CA replied:

Tony, "Rinos" didn't pass Obamacare.

Monday, January 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Rodney in Nikiski Alaska replied:

I am afraid of big brother and everyone should be. All I did was go buy myself an AR 15 with several 30 round clips. I am not as afraid any more. I also reload.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 8:32 PM

billy396 in ohio replied:

A concern? It's an ironclad guarantee that this administration has people watching this and many other forums on a 24 hour basis, noting the IP addresses and identities of every person present.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Dave in Washington replied:

Georgia,
What is needed now is not fear that BB may be reading our comments - what is needed is COURAGE to say what needs to be said and action to back it up! I HOPE BB IS READING THESE COMMENTS!!

You & all of us here should be posting this on our social media pages and emailing to our address books. Send this in to all the conservative media outlets and RAISE AN OUTCRY THAT WILL DROWN OUT THE TYRANTS' ARROGANCE!!!!

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Josh in Knoxville Tennessee replied:

Ok so if bb is reading this , then this is to to those reading it . You are Americans too you have ingaged in the battle for our country hopefuly be cause you love it as much as we do so do the rite thing and don't let America fall . But if your not with us then you are against us and wo unto you. As for my fellow patroits "katie bar the door" cause this aint gona happin with out one hell of a fight.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 9:44 AM

i choose liberty in indiana replied:

Hot right Dave, this is a time for true patriots all others need to go home. We are dealing with bullied here and they need to be beat back now or there will never be an end to what they are capable of as history tells us.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM

EDWARD A. BUDZYNSKI in GREELEY, COLORADO replied:

BIG BROTHER ALREADY KNOWS WHAT BRAND TOOTHPASTE YOU USE. CONSIDER THIS; WOULD YOU BE AS CONCERNED ABOUT OFFENDING BIG BROTHER IF YOU HAD ALREADY SEEN NEIGHBORS BEING DRUG OUT OF THEIR HOMES ON SUSPICION OF OWNING A LEGAL GUN? WERE OUR FATHERS WHO FOUGHT AND DIED IN EUROPE CONCERNED AS TO WHAT MIGHT OFFEND HITLER?

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

I have been and am 100% on board with that come hell or high water. If a tyrannical government wants my defensive weapons in violation of my GOD given rights they will have to take my life first. I will defend my rights and liberties as millions have done in the past.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Michael Brown in Coarsegold CA replied:

Obama is not going to high water.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 12:58 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

It is not open rebellion to support and defend the Constitution, but it is illegal and a crime to violate ones oath, via executive orders. The constabulary and military also are not bound by illegal orders.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Peter in Florida replied:

In their own words are they not declaring an open rebellion against the Constitution, and by implication, the people? We, like the founders of this nation, need to step up and make ourselves known, loud and clear, that they've gone too far and will go no further with their open declaration of tyranny.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Ancient Warrior in The Great American West replied:

We WANT Federal employees who may be call on to carry out criminal assaults on the rights of Americans to read this. They just may get the idea that their lives are at stake. And prefer a quiet retirement to a violent death.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Roy in Thornton, Colorado replied:

Big brother can kiss my ass.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Ray A. Kaighn in Logan, Utah replied:

FREEDOM of SPEECH!!!!! Another God GIVEN and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! Don't be intimidated to not comment. Give me a break!!!!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 11:03 AM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I;[ve said a long time ago, all of us has been tagged and have been under Bush/Cheney. to late to worry about it now. At the time I heard, (So what?)

I was skewered for I do not believe in 100 round drums, or any other high capacity. I said I can go to a gun show and buy a conversion kit and do so legally,. I do not live in fear of my government, I do live in fear of the drug cartels. I stated both my wife and I carry (legally). She has a Walther with an extra clip, I have a CZXZ 83, and 63. with extra clips. We both load with HL HP and frags. The government should not be our concern, it is the drug lords. what will happen is they will come in and force a showdown and in doing so...
I also believe in civil disobedience and have proven it yet 81% of all gun owners are for some kind of ratcheting back the crazies. A 100 shot drum isn't the point, get a clue Ric, Sorry, I got the clue. When we aren't allowed to do background checks on the mentally ill, or check against terrorists watch lists, both of which are NRA stance, think, are we part of the solution, or part of the problem for we are arming them and doing so legally. Towards what end does that serve?
every week, I read, we are a christian nation, praise God...Has anyone seen a movie, a television show, a video game? Our culture glorified vilience. It is an offshoot of our society, it is a reflection of what we are.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM

IGNT RCST !$ in AZ replied:

I know I didn't call for open rebellion. This is about defending liberty against tyranny.

Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 1:00 AM

RPM in Pittsburgh said:

Oh sure you are going to shot at the Army if they come to get you.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Drifter in Washington, Utah replied:

The Army?--against American citizens? Please read the Constitution and demand that it be followed.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

VP Cheney wanted the Army to do what is suggested in above post, He wanted them to arrest alleged terrorist, a clear violation, where were you then?
the point is it started back under Johnson and everyone has this mentality since then. I am a sportsman an d a hunter, I iwll not surrrender my arms yet there is no reason to have a 100 shot drum. We are not at war with Bambi.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Michael Brown in Coarsegold CA replied:

The 100 shot drum may be instrumental in defending the right to bear arms.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:01 AM

Todd Letherer in Marietta, GA replied:

ITS NOT ABOUT HUNTING! WAKE UP!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Jason in Nebraska replied:

The 2A has nothing to do with hunting or "sport" shooting. Those pursuits are simply a by-product of the rights granted by the hand of God and singled out for protection in the Constitution. You are what we call a Fudd...as in Elmer. A hunter who has failed to gain an education. I'm not trying to be critical, just pointing out a truth. If you don't want a 100 round magazine, then don't buy one. I don't have one either. But if you fail to protect my right to own one, there won't be anyone left to back you up when they come for your "scoped (deer) sniper rifle".

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM

US Army retired in TX replied:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -2nd Amendment
INFRINGE - to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. (Merriam-Webster)

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more GUARANTEE against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against TYRANNY which now appears remote in America , but which historically has proved to be always possible.” ~ Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, (D) in “Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns magazine, Feb. 1960, p. 4.

“Our Founding Fathers were proud that Americans were trusted with arms because they knew that only when people are armed could they truly be thought of as free citizens. And that's where the circle closes. Those who want to DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS ARE INTENDING TO DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR FREEDOM, period. Like the criminals their policies encourage, these elitists know that it is always best to disarm victims BEFORE you enslave them.” -- Charley Reese

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM

armedandsafe in WA replied:

I have not hunted in years. I don't shoot for sport nor competition. Therefore you don't need a deer hunting rifle.

Isn't that what you just said?

Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 2:19 AM

THH in NW FL replied:

It is not a matter of will I need a 100 round mag. But that I may want one. My car will go over 100 MPH, but I don't need to go that fast. It may just be that I want know that I can even though I never go that fast. Just another freedom. IF I have to defend myself I want to have all available rounds at my disposal.

Monday, January 14, 2013 at 11:14 PM

confused in southern, IL replied:

So if they outlaw 100 round clips.. Does that mean the army will give up theirs as well? 2nd ammendment is for us to be as armed as well as the government. Pistols or shotguns against semi-auto's don't seem like a fair fight.. Our Guns are our RIGHTS!!

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 2:34 PM

George in Silver Creek replied:

Have you ever heard of The Oath Keepers

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

or Posse Comitatus? It won't be our Army, more likely UN minions.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Josh in Knoxville Tennessee replied:

I for one dont want to shoot our boys but UN boy boy that sounds like invatoin and I'll kill hell outa them.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

The blue helmets will make it easy to identify and take out the enemy.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

RLEmery in Arlington VA replied:

Why do you think most firing range targets are that special blue color?

So we would alreayd be in practice to hit the blue target!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Jason in Nebraska replied:

The UN has no teeth without US troops providing the muscle. Not worried about the UN. I'm actually not worried about any confiscation scheme, or any other further illegal infringements, simply because there are very few LEO or military personel willing to lose their lives and endangering their families by attempting to enforce it.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

LEO and 2nd Amendment Defender in Texas replied:

Jason,

Not to MENTION that we LEO and Military personnel are the people who have sworn to Protect and Defend the Constitution.
We are not commiting the dereliction of duty that the elected officials who are intent on grabbing guns are. (Read: Tyrants)
You have voiced a mute point. Not that any Military or Law Enforcement personnnel are unwilling to risk our lives (we do it DAILY), but rather WE would not commit the tyranny that we defend all citizens from. Abject Lawlessness.
I commend your readiness. Just focus your aim toward the Potomac.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Telezer in Orygun replied:

George--

I and my three brothers are Oath Keepers. I have my reaffirmation on my wall and my signature in a copy of Essential Liberty.

Monday, January 14, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky replied:

The armed citizenry of this Country kept the Japanese from assaulting our shores, while this Countries Army was fight two fronts. I don't see where the concept has changed.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:12 PM

brian in florida and michigan replied:

Millions of our soldiers took an oath to defend our country against enemies both "foreign and domestic". The current regime fits the bill as a domestic enemy and will be dealt with accordingly by them.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Cooneye in North Carolina replied:

Officers in the Military take an oath that also requires them to protect and defend our Constitution. Enlisted regulat personnel do not have this part in the oath since they are subserviant to their officers.

I would hope and trust the majority of officers would never ever require their subordinates to carry out any un-Constitutional orders coming from the Commander-in-Chief.

It hurts for a veran as myself to even acknowledge the likes of Obama being Commander in Chief of our armed forces.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Old Vet in Myrtle Beach SC replied:

You are wrong on the Oath. It is not an "Officer Thing". I took an oath to defend the Constitution "against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". I was just inducted into the Army.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 9:18 PM

eddie in Washington, DC replied:

The oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM

Dirtdart in NC replied:

Wrong Cooneye. Enlisted swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. The difference is that the oath also states the enlisted man will obey "the orders of the president and officers appointed over" him according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Regulations and manuals also say there is a moral and legal obligation to DISOBEY any illegal or unconstitutional order.

Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM

theodora in Round Lake Beach, Illinois replied:

Please remember even though we took the oath, the interpretation of lawful orders is done first by your CO. If command says round up these people,etc... You would be hard pressed (possible shot) to disobey. We set a precident through the offices of Homeland Securitywhen we rounded up a lot of people in the name of terrorism and let them sit in Gitmo, never to be heard from again, we were all for that at the time without thinking of future us of the word "terrorist." When we stand up to defend the Constitution there will be people in office that will call us terrorists. And the professional Army will have to do what they are ordered to do. I am praying daily that it will never come to that.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 8:34 PM

R. Zelnick in Arkansas replied:

The people rounded up and sent to Gitmo were NOT US citizens. They were (are) war criminals.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Obsvr-1 in Portland replied:

... to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic ...

methinks the domestic threat to the Constitution live in Wash. DC are inhabitants of the Whitehouse and work in the halls of Congress.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Josh in Knoxville Tennessee replied:

I have lots of freinds in the milatary and none of them will kill thier own folks

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM

US Army retired in TX replied:

I WILL NOT be fingerprinted for owning a gun!
I WILL NOT have my picture taken for owning a gun!
I WILL NOT register my guns!
I DO NOT own any guns that were not LEGALLY obtained!
This Vietnam vet says I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!!
MOLON LABE!!!!!
Live FREE or die!!!!!

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" --Thomas Jefferson

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Roy in Thornton, Colorado replied:

I have to wonder if tha Military would back Obama. Think about it, They hate is F'n guts.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM

JAR in Topeka Kansas replied:

Hell YES!
Live Free or DIE!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 10:13 AM

david marshall in concho,az. replied:

or anyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Largeness in Michigan said:

Stand and defend (the Constitution - against all enemies...), or get yourself out of the way.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Greg in Millersport, OH said:

"Guns, Officer? No guns here. I don't have any guns."

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

If that conversation is taking place you had better be armed because they are not there to take your word on the subject.
Anyone coming to confiscate your weapons are not friends of a Free Republic and the rule of law. They are there to subvert your freedom, plain and simple and follow the dictates of tyrannical government.
If that happens I hope my wife is not here to be in the line of fire.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

I am with you, anyone coming on my property without invitation is tresspassing, and will be shot.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Mark in Florida replied:

The same goes here with me. As long as she survives to tell what happened perhaps my sacrifice will not be in vain.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Rachel in CA replied:

Cop called into a radio talk show earlier and said he would never execute an order to confiscate guns from lawabiding citizens. I wonder how many others would do the same...and how many would "follow orders" like good Nazis/

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 7:22 PM

RLEmery in Arlington VA replied:

Not one single one of my police officer friends would do so and several of these friends who have stated this clearly are on current SWAT team units!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Steve in Georgia replied:

Those who love liberty in our city are encouraged to know that our sheriff and his men have openly stated that they will never confiscate guns from the citizens of our county. And we also know a sniper in the Army who has informed us that he and all other snipers he serves with have all ready made plans to resist the government if the leaders come for our guns. This is encouraging, and it is our hope that the same is true of LLE officials and our armed forces throughout this great nation.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Michael R. Johnson in Racine, WI said:

This just another attempt to crown King Obama! What country can we escape to from tyranny? I believe the only way to stop corrupt politicians is to take the vote away from people who receive Welfare, Food Stamps, Unemployment or any Government assistance (less Social Security).

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Bob G in Georgia replied:

There was a time when the military did not pay income tax, I also believe they could not voter either in Federal Elections because they paid no tax. So if you pay no Federal taxes, then you dont get to vote. Good idea actually

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

So do you agree to pay servitude to tyrannical anti-constitutional dictates to give up your blood sweat and tears so our government can spend unconstitutionally and give away our treasure to foreign governments?

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Rachel in CA replied:

I think he's saying that only people with skin in the game should be allowed to vote. In our FF's day, you had to be a landowner to vote. Makes sense to me that people living off the govt should NOT be allowed to vote, because it's a conflict of interest.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Obsvr-1 in Portland replied:

especially applies to Public Sector Unions, an ultimate conflict of interest.

Use tax payer dollars to pay public sector employees; who are then forced to pay union dues; Union bosses skim off some vig then use those tax payer dollars to pay politicians and lobbyists to increase the public sector pay and pensions; step and repeat and you have an uncontrolled open loop Conflict of Interest Machine run amok....

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Michael Brown in Coarsegold CA replied:

What? you would discriminate against stupid people?

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:09 AM

Jason in Nebraska replied:

Best idea I have heard all day!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM

S Heath in Keller, TX replied:

Yes -- We need to change the Voting Policy -- Voters must be TAXPAYERS. They must show a transcript from the IRS of their 1099 to vote.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 4:28 PM

TheTexasCooke in Lockhart, Texas said:

Just a thought...if outlawing firearms will get them off the street...here's an idea....why don't we make heroin, cocain, and meth illegal?

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM

ratrider in OC, Md replied:

Better yet, lets pass a law making murder illegal!

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Rachel in CA replied:

Because outlawing things people want only serves to fuel the black market. Blackmarket Guns & Ammo will become the only "growth industry" in America.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Jerdog in Lake Forest CA. replied:

This is a classic comment. Thanks. You know all the hype about gun control is over shadowing the fact the there is more violence on TV, in the theaters and gaming consoles that glorifies the misuse and erratic behavior of guns than ever before in history. Why is there more violence? Because freedom of speech says it’s ok to dilute or society with this crap. Taking away guns is like taking away cars because some people drink and drive and then get into an accident were someone dies. I would say there are more people who are killed this way yearly then those who are killed by guns. Let’s have an automobile ban. What’s next? How many people die from cigarettes, alcohol, pissed of wives, plan wrecks, etc? Let’s ban everything…..Go Oboooooma. Here comes Socialism.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Debbi Moss in Vienna, MO said:

The United States of America does not need to be fundamentally transformed, it needs to be constitutianally protected. To eradicate freedom promised to its citizens is, in my opinion, is nothing short of treason. My 20-gague shotgun, lovingly named "Alice" has been in my home for more than three decades. She likes it here, so I will never allow her to go any where else.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia said:

The underlying question we face is -- When does the abuse of "executive privilege", rise to the level of tyranny? When does the breakdown of the legislative process, such as when Harry Reid refuses to address bills from the House, rise to the level of tyranny?

Tyranny thrives on "crisis", and "extreme measures" taken by rulers "for the good of the country". These are indeed desperate times - and things are not looking up.

The Constitution, should of course, be our guide. But in the face of an imperious President, and a complicit Senate, the judicial review process has proven to be slow and ineffective in restraining the executive over-reach.

Those who would restrict the 2nd Amendment to the Militia, should look closely at the 1st. The words "people" or "individuals" are not mentioned except in regard to assembly and redress of grievances. "Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the Press" could certainly suggest that "free speech" is limited to the Press, much as some would restrict guns to the Militia only.

Similarly, if rights to bear arms can be "infringed" by regulations limiting the size, type, usage of "arms" and requiring registration, then without question it would hold that the right to free speech can be "abridged" to limit the size type and usage of "words", and require the registration of "speakers", following the payment of a mandatory fee and a background check of course. This is absurd, you say? Besides, "words don't kill, but guns do."

If that is true why does use of the words "Sieg Heil! Heil, mein Führer!" still carry a criminal offense in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic? Wake up America... It is happening right here!!

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Georgia Tiger in Ringgold, GA replied:

I in no way want to say that I will cower in the face of gun confiscation! My Congressman and Senators hear from me on a regular basis. I believe that registration is a form of infringement of my right to keep and bear arms. Whether I keep or bear arms should only be obvious if I am seen to be doing so. We have a tyrannical government growing larger each day in Washington.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

My Congressman, Adam Smith D (WA) will no longer reply to my letters to him on the erossion on our rights and freedom as he is part of the tyrannical mess we now have. My letters deman constitutional limits, he obviously does not agree.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Marci in Georgia replied:

Right On, Dr. Timm!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Eric in Wyoming said:

I've seen this coming for the past three years. As a retired veteran, I gave an oath to 'protect and defend' this nation against 'all enemies, both foreign, and domestic'....the enemy has made themselves very clear. Contrary to Piers Morgan, we are not Britain, do not wish to be like Britain, and, as I recall, we broke AWAY from Britain for many of these same issues. We as a nation have a very, very tough decision to make; oppose our brothers in arms, as they will surely be used to help disarm the U.S. in the name of 'Homeland Security', and begin another Civil War, or lay down peacefully, expecting the Government to protect us....this worked real well in Cambodia, Russia, Spain, Germany......

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Mike McGinn in People's Republic of Maryland replied:

The positive news is that our "domestic enemy" is fairly well concentrated in the Blue States and thus easily outflanked and isolated (where as the British-loving Torries were scattered liberally throughout the 13 colonies). The army we might fight would be made up of our brothers and sisters, not some Red Coats from across the pond in jolly old England. Unlike the old Civil War, in which the federal government pitted brother agaist brother to free the slaves and forcefully maintain the union (which States had voluntarily contracted to join and could thus freely leave), a new Civil War would pit the people against the government itself (and those "Torries" that wished to support it). This is why they want your guns. Without them, you cannot fight that fight, and your brothers and sisters in uniform will have to shoot fewer of you, thus they'll be more inclined to obey the (unlawful) orders of their Commander-in-Chief and march to take away your liberties.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Kenny Sexton in Buchanan, VA said:

I am with you Brother, I live on a mountain named Purgatory and I'm standing on top shouting with you. Let's keep it civil but let them know they will not infringe our Second Amendment Rights

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Patriot34 in El Dorado, CA said:

Any universial background check carries with it the establishment of a nationwide database of gun owners that can be used for confiscation or just outing gun owners in the press. I will resist any such establishment of a data base.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM

JWH in "The Republic of Texas" replied:

If you have a consealed carry permit, you are already in the database.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM

SaintPeter in GA replied:

Patriot34,
I understand your concern. However, a properly devised nationwide database would only include the names of those prohibited from owning firearms (i.e. felons, drug addicts, insane). Done properly, a nationwide database of prohibited persons would allow all lawful gun buyers to pass an instant background check. This would help prevent prohibited persons from buying guns. As always, read any proposed legislation carefully before accepting or rejecting it.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM

billy396 in ohio replied:

What are you talking about? When you buy a gun and they run a NICS check, what database do you think they check? THAT database already exists, and no further laws are needed to restrict the rights and the privacy of law-abiding citizens who freely choose, as is their lawful right, to own firearms, including semi-automatic modern sporting rifles. Contrary to the propaganda, many hunters use these AR-15 rifles to hunt deer, feral hogs, coyotes, and other varmints. With feral hogs, in particular, you DO need a high-capacity magazine, as you might run into more than one, and one shot doesn't necessarily kill them unless it's very well placed. These wild hogs destroy thousands of acres of usable land every year, and they must be stopped.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Gemma Vigna in Clinton Corners, NY replied:

The ban on the assault rifle is all based on looks. Like the rest of our ill society. Defend yourselves.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM

MAH in Wisconsin replied:

I applied for my permit earlier this year and the background check was extensive. Shortly after, I forgot a piece of information on the application form and was promptly questionned when purchasing a firearm. There's no doubt anyone who has legally purchased a gun recenty is solidly in several databases. There have been claims by the left that those on the 'far-right', rebellious, and anti-government in their speech, are unstable and dangerous. This is what I am now concerned about when those approving permits under potential new laws evaluate fitness for gun ownership.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I concur. part of the problem is the NRA who refuses to have checks on terrorist watch lists. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing our alleged enemies access to weapons that I can turn fully automatic.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Jim Gilbert in Dallas, TX said:

I stand with you!! In total agreement!

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Edgar Wells in Louisville, Kentucky said:

The Constitution declares itself the supreme law, therefore any law or decree that violates the Constitution is not valid. The second amendment is pretty clear, therefore, never, ever give up your arms.
Stand and defend (the Constitution - against all enemies...), or get yourself out of the way.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Tom H. in Rock Island, IL said:

Wouldn't the most sensible measure to take in preventing Newtown, CT or Aurora, CO, type mass killings be to make sure the mentally ill are institutionalized for OUR safety?

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

No! The best way to stop those sickos is with a JHP by armed citizens. Reason, The police are minutes away when seconds count.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

Well, yes, Tom, but that means then that you would have to institutionalize all of Congress, the Judicial, and the Sunni Muslim in the Oval Office.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM