I was raised on the idea that I and I alone are reasonable for my own actions. If I got in a fight at school it wasn’t the video games which I played who were at fault, but me and me alone. However today most citizens always have a reason why they did a certain action, but none of their reasons hold themselves accountable. I have learned long ago that you need to ‘man up’ for whatever action you decided you needed to take instead of coping out. I once got in a fight at school that caused me to be dragged in front of the principal of the high school. I never once said I fought because the music lyrics said so or the video games showed me that fighting was cool. I stuck to my guns stated that I fought to defend my younger brother from being harassed. Even though this excuse was considered unacceptable by the school, when I told my father the play by play of the entire incident and that I was defending a family member with my actions, he only asked me one question. “Is this true?” Which I responded to that it was. Because of this I wasn’t punished to any extent at home because I stood up to my actions instead of shying away from them. I stood up to my actions just the same as I stand up to my beliefs.

I raised to defend my beliefs until there is no longer any breath left in my lungs and my heart is tired from pumping blood throughout my body. I think our society would be much better off with these same values. Stick up for what you believe in and defend them with any means necessary. Without actions like this, our republic (we don’t live in a democracy) would cease to be such and default to an oligarchy. If the average citizen is afraid or unwilling to stand up for what they believe in, the ruling minority will do whatever the hell they want without regard for the rest of us. We need to stand up and take back the power which belongs to the average citizen. The average citizen is immensely powerful in our republic and we should never forget that fact. This is the underlying reason why our government feels it is necessary to disarm us. The leaders are scared of the citizens which is the way it needs to be. The government needs to be scared of its citizens, never its citizens scared of their government.

Every citizen needs to stand up to their representatives instead of shying away from politics believing they have no power. They just need to look back in the history books to realize how wrong they are. On July 4^th, the king of England wrote in his journal that nothing happened on this day while in fact just 3% of the population of the colonizes took up arms to revolt against the British crown. If 3% of the population of just 13 colonizes could topple the strongest empire of the time, imagine what could happen if 100% of all legal gun owners rose up and refused laws which took away our constitutional rights. Stop blaming others and start to hold yourself accountable. Live and breath what you say. Put your money where your mouth is. If there ever is a time where we need to defend our constitutional rights from a tyrannical government, I will be there with the Gadsden flag behind me and my brothers and sisters to the right and left of me. There have been many patriots having to lay down their lives for the good of our great nation and from time to time the tree of liberty needs to be rejuvenated with the blood of patriots.

I don’t know if these actions will be held in high regard by my friends, family or loved ones, but I was never one to live my life by other peoples morals. I have my own values and beliefs and will defend them the best I can. Just as I open carry daily to protect myself and other citizens from would be criminals, I will stand up to protect our Constitutional rights if the need should ever arise just the same as I will enlist the first day any country should declare war on these great states of America.

I don’t ask others to do this, I freely do these actions and will do again.

Live Free or Die

Don’t Tread on Me

Sad Feinstein

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that a proposed assault weapons ban won’t be part of a gun control bill the Senate plans to debate next month, the sponsor of the ban said Tuesday, a decision that means the ban stands little chance of survival.This is a good sign, but it isn’t over yet!

Feinstein says she will attempt to add her proposed ban in the senate as an amendment to the bill. She will need 60 votes in the senate to make this happen.  Of the 100 votes in Senate there are 53 Dems and 2 Independent that vote with Dems on most bills.  Giving Feinstein the possibility of 55 of the 60 votes needs, this of course is assuming that its a party line vote and is not taking into account any moderate Dems.  This means you need to pressure your Senators to make sure if this passes the house this does not get traction in the Senate and pressure your House Reps.

This isn’t all, you may be remembering that Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send 4 measures to the floor:

1. Feinstein’s AWB and High Capacity Magazines Ban
2. Expanded Federal Background Checks -including private sales
3. Increased Federal penalties for illegal gun trafficking
4. Boost Safety Money for Schools

At this time it is unclear if the “High Capacity Magazine Ban” is also out or if it is on the floor for discussion.  The power is literally in your hands to tell your government how you feel and let them know these bans and tighter restrictions are not what you want as a citizen.  Keep up the good honest fight and always pursue the legal recourse where available, put your reps and senators on speed dial if you must.  Remember you have a voice and that voice can be used to re-elect or remove any elected official and sometimes they need to  be reminded of it.

Also keep the pressure on Colorado it looks like their governor is going to press on and sign their ban, which will ban a number of shotguns, nearly every modern magazine (due to removable footplates), and high capacity mags.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” - Thomas Jefferson

There has been much talk lately due to bills and laws passed by MO, CA, CO, NY, and other states of gun confiscation. Certain guns, due to their characteristics, are being deemed “assault rifles” despite their inability to fire automatically like the actual assault rifles used by our military. The Constitution of the United States gives We the People the right to bear arms and states explicitly that it is a right that shall not be infringed.

Any American who surrenders his or her firearms voluntarily is a traitor. Doing so is treason. Likewise, any member of the military or representative of the government enforcing any disarmament order is following an unconstitutional order.

History shows that gun bans and grabs are the acts of tyrants. Why is Homeland Security practicing with targets designed to look like average citizens while the government most likely believes the majority of us will surrender our guns and comply with any law? We are, after all, law abiding gun owners. The answer is sickening.

The President and his allies hope that a group of us will amass and resist publicly in the form of an armed uprising. This can not be the case as it gives him the excuse he needs, unlike the recent mass shootings, to enact martial law or ban guns via executive order. In-Public resistance should be in the form of peaceful rallies, and we need to rally weekly in every state capital and Washington, D.C while complying within the law.

I am not writing this to incite revolution, nor am I threatening any elected official. A revolution is the overthrow of a government to be replaced by something else. I am writing this in defense of our Constitution, which those who serve our country are under oath to protect. A gun grab is an illegal violation of that oath. It is up to Congress to impeach any member of the executive branch that orders one. However, it is up to the people not to comply with such an order, by any means.

To those who say Molon Labe, I say you must mean it. If the government takes those words as a challenge, you must give them one. It is time for all gun owners, including the hunters who feel their guns are safe and would never be confiscated, to ready for the worst. Our guns are our property, and we have the right to defend our property.

Our Founders made America a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Even if the majority wanted guns to be banned, the Constitution protects the minority. The Bill of Rights cannot be repealed. Therefore, if an armed representative of the government comes to your door to take your gun away, you have the right to defend your property. If they come on our land to disarm us, may there be a scope behind every window and may the thirst of the tree of liberty be quenched.

Do not surrender your guns and become a slave to tyranny. It is better to die free than to live our lives as slaves.

I have been accused of being liberal by my conservative friends and conservative by my liberal friends, which to me means I am doing something right (if both sides love and hate me then I have got my hat on straight).  I have had the hardest time trying to explain my stance and find someone who understands where I am coming from…. until tonight.  Blog The Scared Cow Slaughter hit the nail on the head for me with the linked post.  I am going to go ahead and quote the entire article.

I am not atheist, but I am sure you get the picture of where i am coming from. Like the writer below, I know I am not the only one. The division being capitulated by the President with his gun grabbing agenda is effecting both parties, not just one.

Or, How I Learned To Stop Caring.

By way of introduction, I’d like to explain some of my former positions.  Please do not reply and tell me why I’m wrong.  That’s not relevant to this post.  These WERE my positions, for right or wrong.

I used to believe women had a right to reproductive choice.  As a male, I will obviously never have an abortion.  I supported access because birth control is cheaper than abortions, abortions are cheaper than welfare, welfare is cheaper than jail.  And I don’t believe the government is capable of legislating for every circumstance.  Most of the time, a woman and her doctor will make a decision that works for the situation, and until a baby is an independent organism, it’s a parasite.  This was also important to me because my wife was warned that a further pregnancy could kill her.  That’s been surgically remedied and is no longer a problem.

I used to believe gays were entitled to relate as they wished, including marriage.  What two people do together doesn’t affect me unless I’m one of them.

I used to believe it was wrong to treat people differently based on their skin color.  Even if a few people fit a stereotype, millions of others do not.

I used to believe there should be a strong division between church and state, that any support of a religious entity using property of the state constituted endorsement and was wrong.

I used to believe people had a right to protest, campaign, rant and create non-violent incidents to express themselves and their positions.  I also believed they had a right to publish as they chose.  I believed they were entitled to burn the Flag in protest, to make a statement.

I have obviously been at odds with conservatives over these positions.  There have been loud arguments, heated discussions and occasional insults.

~~~

I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.  The Supreme Court agrees with me, which means that right is as valid as abortion, sexual privacy, protest and speech.

This should mean that  strict scrutiny applies, meaning the government needs to prove the fabric of society itself is at risk before limiting it.  Just as the Press has the right to broadcast troop movements it can see or acquire, regardless of casualties, I have the right to own weapons, regardless of how someone else may act.  “Someone might get hurt” is an invalid excuse for restriction.

In fact, it’s easy enough to prove that freedom of the press HAS caused harm and even death to people, whether it’s troop movements, or the address of a person of interest.

The rights of gays to relate as they wish brings the risk of AIDS (60% of all cases are from gay relations, not drugs or medical contamination.)

It’s provable that if we required proof of need before awarding a driver’s license, we’d have less car accidents.

So, the argument that “guns kill people” is null and irrelevant to the discussion.  Lots of things kill people.  That’s not relevant to our civil rights.

Now, over this position, I’ve had at least 5 death threats (though of course, no “liberal” actually has the balls to attempt so).

I’ve twice been reported to Family Services on the grounds that I have guns in the house, which means I’m a danger to my kids (which complaints were laughed at, here in Indiana).

I’ve been accused of racism…because I own guns.

I’ve been accused of fascism…because I own guns.

I’ve been called a coward…no “real man” needs a gun to protect himself.  This is a surprise to me as a veteran, who carried guns regularly for the purpose of protecting myself and others, but what do I know?

I’ve been called a “Fat, Fox News watching, McDonald’s munching, inbred, retarded, drooling redneck imbecile.”

I’ve been told I have a small penis.

I’ve been told I’m insane to “imagine fighting the government” by people with no military experience who also hate the government, sometimes for the same reasons.

I’ve had a date tell me I “seem so normal, for a gun nut.”

I’ve been called a “rightwinger.”  Indeed.  A gay/female/black/abortion/separation of church and state/free speech supporting rightwinger.

I’ve been told this right doesn’t exist, that if it exists I can’t “pretend” it’s more important than wage inequality for women, or gay marriage.

When the Heller Decision was decided in favor of gun ownership, I was told “I hope you all shoot yourselves with guns, because I can’t marry the man I love!” by an alleged friend.

There’s apparently a “Right to feel safe,” and my owning a gun destroys it, because I might shoot someone.  However, if I say a gun makes me feel safe, I’m paranoid and insane.

I’ve been told I support “baby killers.”

I’ve been threatened with having my Wikipedia page vandalized, by someone who claimed he was more of a man than me.

I’ve been told I can’t be trusted.  How can anyone know I won’t go on a shooting spree, because I own an “assault rifle”?

So much for liberal tolerance.

I didn’t realize I was so evil and hateful an individual I deserved to be treated in such fashion.

But when I look at the arguments, I think they may be correct:

“At the time the Constitution was written, the weapons in question were muskets.”

You know what?  You’re right.  And marriage was between one man and one woman.  So what’s with gay marriage?  No longer will I offer any moral support, oppose any online statements attacking it, speak out for it.  They have the same right as anyone—to marry someone of the opposite gender.  And given that all gays support raping little boys (just like all gun owners support shooting school kids), I don’t think I can support them.  We should do things just the way they were done 220 years ago.  That’s the liberal way.

“The Heller Decision was by an activist court.  It doesn’t count.” 

Indeed.  Just like Roe v Wade was an activist decision.  It doesn’t count.

“We’re not trying to take your guns away, just have reasonable limits.  It’s a compromise.”

And some people want reasonable limits on abortion, like waiting periods, gestational time limits, ultrasound, etc.  It’s a reasonable response to an activist court decision, and reasonable restrictions on a right, for public benefit.  Don’t come whining about your right to murder babies, and I won’t come to you whining about my right to shoot school kids.

And no one is saying you can’t ride the bus.  You just have to sit where people think is reasonable.  No one is saying women can’t work.  They just have to get paid what is reasonable for the work they do, allowing for the fact they’re going to leave the workplace and raise a family.  It’s a compromise.

“Assault weapons are an extreme interpretation.” 

True.  And not allowing any religious emblems on government premises is an extreme interpretation.  As long as they’re privately paid for, what’s it to you?  No one is saying you can’t belong to the Christian church of your choice, just not to extreme groups, like atheists or Muslims.  It would be paranoid to think anyone was trying to infringe on your legitimate right to be free from state religion, just like I’d be paranoid to think they wanted to take my guns.  Quite a few states had official churches well into the 1800s. This is not an infringement on your freedom of religion.

“Given Sandy Hook, you have to make reasonable compromises.”

“We just want licensing and safe storage requirements so the wrong people don’t get guns.” 

“Publicizing the information lets people make informed choices about who they live near.” 

Accepted.  In exchange, gay men should make reasonable compromises over Penn State.  They will simply have to accept being registered and kept a safe distance from children.  This isn’t a violation of their rights.  It’s just common sense.  The public has a right to know.

This should apply to protests, too.  No reasonable person would object to being identified.  They should welcome it—it means they can’t be wrongly maligned.  All union members, blacks, gays and feminists should be signed in with ID before a march or gathering, just so we can track the real criminals to keep the rest safe.

“The country survived without assault weapons for 240 years.” 

True (well, no, it was 135 years, depending on your definition of “assault weapon”). And it survived without women in combat even longer.  The infantry’s trying to scare off women?  Serves them right.  Things were working just fine the way they were.

“This woman is being badly portrayed on the cover of a book.” 

No, no, that’s an accurate portrayal, just like all military contractors are sociopathic mercenaries who torture people, all gun owners are moral cowards with Walter Mitty complexes and all gun dealers exist to make money from gangbangers.  It’s silly to suggest one group is singled out for inaccurate portrayals when we know the other portrayals are spot on.

Yup.  I’m taking you at your word.  Want money? Don’t care.  Want a petition signed?  Call someone who who gives a shit.  Want a link spread?   Yawn.  Women or gays or blacks or Hispanics don’t feel they’re being treated nicely?  So what?

~~~

First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I’m not black.

Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I’m not gay.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I’m an atheist.

When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I’m a legal immigrant.

Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I’d done nothing wrong.  So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.

~~~

Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw.  I really don’t care anymore.  This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but.

AMFs.

This article explains my pain of being a social liberal and governmental conservative.  I have also come to the conclusion as of recently that if you took the Constitution at face value and believed that it applied to all religions, all people (race, sex, or age), and that it government should only enforce the constitution inside the united states….. the world would be a better place.   I don’t claim to have the answers but to me it seems pretty obvious that or government is growing at such a rate that it no longer fears the people but the people fear it and each other… and politicians know we fear each other so keep us hating each other more then we hate the establishment as a whole.

In the early 90′s before the Assault Weapons Ban, when the internet was just making headway, an individual by the name of J. Neil Schulman took it upon himself to have the 2nd Amendment analyzed by a linguistics expert, renowned Journalist Dr. Roy Copperud, and “rewritten” in the language of today. Here’s what he found.

This is a relatively long read, in which the gist of it implies that as written today the 2nd Amendment would say, “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.“ It also states that this right preexists the Constitution itself, and cannot be subject to interpretation by any elected government or judicial body under the Constitution. This is a worthy read.

Below is the original text of Schulman’s work, with in depth analysis and understanding of how Professor Copperud came to his translation and what it all means, per the definitions of each word then and now. Since some people, especially those who seek to disarm us, believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” and not set in stone, works like this one help refute such infringements made under those conditions. Enjoy, and spread the word, taking with it what you will. I think it speaks for itself, just as it did in 1791.  (Original link here)

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

“I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

“The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’, is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

“I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.”

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

---

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

“In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

The Obama Administration along with the House and Senate Democrats who are behind strict gun control laws including the so called “Assault Weapons Ban” are constantly berating our guns as “military style” weapons that “don’t belong on our streets.” A simple fact-check of that one crucial statement disproves their entire agenda.

When Fairchild’s subsidiary Armalite introduced the first AR-15 prototypes (ARmalite, not Assault Rifle) in the 1950′s, like most fads of that era they were looking to create a “futuristic” rifle that would fit in with the pop-culture elements of the time, such as fins on Cadillacs, or fiberglass bodies, and the like. Their concept was to revolutionize the “look” of a rifle–to remove the centuries old tradition of wooden stocks housing steel receivers, while utilizing the latest in manufacturing technological know-how learned over two world wars and the conflict in Korea. Armalite developed the AR, but could not get the military contract or afford to manufacture it, so they sold the rights to Colt, which sold the rifle off on the civilian market as we know it today.

Interestingly enough, in that era, military contracts on firearms were hard to come by. Unlike the Communists, who had Mikhail Kalashnikov on payroll to develop his rifle, some of the key firearms adopted by the US military in history were done so after interest was drummed up by success in the civilian market and requirements were delivered to the manufacturer for a military model. M14′s were in the process of replacing the Garand, and it should be noted that the military was in the business of obtaining select-fire rifles at the time–true assault weapons.

Semi-automatic rifles, along with their bolt action predecessors, were virtually tactically useless in the era of mechanized warfare vs. hoards of communist conscripts. The Japanese Bonzai Charge of the 1940′s would go on to influence the tactics of the North Korean and Chinese Armies, and as a result, rapid fire became a necessity for combat troops.

The AR was first designed as a civilian sporting rifle and would not become the M16 until the military tested it and submitted their requirement for a select-fire version on time for the Vietnam War. The photograph above this article demonstrates an original Colt AR-15 advertisement from fifty years ago. The original AR-15 Sporter was never an automatic rifle, rather, the M16 became the select fire rifle after the success of the semi-automatic AR-15 in the civilian market, and in military field testing when General Curtis LeMay of Strategic Air Command thought it would be the perfect fit for Air Force MP’s. Thus, the M16 was born.

Do not let the propaganda efforts of the left wing gun grabbing movement fool you. The AR-15 is not the M16, and the M16 did not come before the AR-15. In this instance, the question of “which came first” is simple to answer – for science, whether it was the chicken or the egg remains debatable.

Want to help Stop the Gun Ban? Contact your Congressman today and tell him or her to oppose ANY new gun laws. Use Ruger’s contact form and you’ll have done your part in a matter of seconds.

The War on Guns continues today as House Democrats unveil their own bill to further infringe the Second Amendment Rights of the American People. The bill, which will be introduced in a matter of hours, mirrors the Feinstein ban in the Senate along with the creation of a national gun registry in the form of “universal background checks” and other measures that coincide with the twenty-three executive orders issued by the President.

Now, more than ever, Americans must contact their Representatives and tell them that there are no acceptable gun control measures in wake of the Newtown tragedy and that the 20,000 laws on the books are to be enforced instead. You, the reader, must take the time to do it. This is not a fight for someone else to do, rather, it is a fight for all of us.

The firearms company Ruger has made it very easy for you to contact your elected officials. Simply fill out this form on their website and click send, it’s free, and it contacts every relevant official in your state with a pre-set message demanding no new gun laws.

If you want to send your own message to your elected officials, the database to do so can be found here. We recommend just using the script on Ruger’s page due to the convenience and small amount of time it takes to accomplish the goal. Had enough Americans demonstrated outrage by now, there would be no new proposals in the House. Now is the time to act, and inaction is inexcusable.

The Department of Homeland Security is buying up guns and ammunition at record rates to create de facto gun control. Vice President Biden said the other day that an Assault Weapons Ban would do nothing to prevent mass shootings. What do these actions tell you? They tell me that our government has turned against our constitutional rights, and that if we do not draw the line here we may no longer recognize the America we live in.

Sometime tonight after the Democrat’s bill is introduced we will update the site with their proposal and further calls to action. Please forward, if nothing else, the Ruger site link to everyone you know. It’s understandable that some people don’t want to take the time to call their Congressmen or show up at a rally, the least those people can do is fill out a simple form.

If we’re going to stop this gun ban, we must get the word out now.

The Campaign has stops all over the country, where the President will give stump speeches on the “importance of passing legislative measures to prevent gun violence,” (read: Assault Weapons/10+Magazine Ban) as well as backing his executive orders and creating Universal Background Checks (read: National Gun Registration Scheme).

This is our call to action and our moment. First and foremost, my recently-bar-admitted lawyer friends wanted me to remind everyone reading this that even CCW holders and those in Open Carry states cannot carry at events hosted by senior level politicians. So don’t do it. Period. You will be arrested, and the media will have a victory in advancing the President’s agenda. It’s what they want you to do, and it’s a trap none of us are stupid to fall into. What STGB has planned shouldn’t get anyone arrested. The worst that will happen is we will be asked to leave, assuming the events are not canceled immediately after.

Now, here’s the plan:

When the President and his gun grabber friends come to your town, show up to his event in large numbers. Bring your friends, leave the guns at home, and bring only your voices. When the President takes the stage, shout him down just as liberals shout down Conservative speakers like Ann Coulter on their college campuses, or how they treated Mitt Romney on the campaign trail.

What do we shout in unison? “Shall not be infringed!” right out of the second Amendment. Or, “No Gun Ban!” or even just “Leave Us Alone!” but most importantly, “The Second Amendment Shall not be Infringed!” or the shortened version already mentioned. Don’t try to get in holding any signs that say “Stop The Gun Ban” but if you do manage to do it, great job.

In addition to crashing the President’s rally, if it can be arranged in your town, hold a pro-gun rally a few blocks to a mile away, where local carrying laws are to be adhered to, that those who went to his rally can join after being kicked out. Make sure you are nowhere near the Presidents route, and that you are far away enough from his event, if your counter rally will have carrying.

In the name of stopping this Unconstitutional gun grab, let the President find united vocal resistance to his plan everywhere he travels. I’ll make it happen in my town, will you do so in yours? Spread the word via social networking, and lets make this happen. The Politicization of the Sandy Hook shooting must stop, and it must stop now.

Want to discuss it? Like our Facebook Page, Follow us on Twitter, and Sign up for our Message Board. Don’t forget to sign the petition to stop Feinstein’s gun ban here.

The same will happen with a gun ban. Lots of Americans and companies produce the actually firearms which would be banned, accessories which will no longer have or use or ammunition used by these weapons at target ranges around the country. Tens of thousands if not much more will be laid off if this unconstitutional legislation.

However, some representatives are trying to jump start the down trodden economy by decreasing regulations and not passing laws which will ultimately cost jobs and not fulfill their primary purpose. A freshman senator from Texas, Ted Cruz is trying to do just this.

“In light of the reception you have received in the Windy City, please know that Texas would certainly welcome more of your business and the jobs you create,” Cruz wrote in his Jan. 29 letter. “Texans value jobs and value freedom, and over 1,000 people a day are moving to Texas (often from cities like Chicago), because Texas is where the jobs are.”

Texas is on the right track. Do not run push away companies who create jobs for your community. Instead create incentives for them. The gun ban will not only prove to be completely ineffective at increasing safety as every prior ban has shown. (Note: There has never been a firearm ban which reduced crime, ever.) It will also decrease jobs and American’s standard of living. This is completely asinine in such a bad economy. The representative should be concentrating on improving the economy and dealing with the debt not infringing on our rights.

Read more here.

So what do you think ….

Join our Forum to discuss our gun rights today! Sign and spread the petition to block Feinstein’s ban here. Remember, it’s free to sign, in the confirmation page of your signature iPetitions may solicit you for a donation. Ignore it.

This father states,  ”The problem is not gun laws, it is civility.” He continues to go on about how guns are not the problem and the mass shooting are only a symptom a much large problem in our American society. He says that individual accountability needs be the name of the game along with good, solid parenting to instill moral values in our children.

He next talks about Chicago gun laws and the lack of effect they have had on the city. As he states criminals don’t follow the laws by definition. One more law will not stop them as they currently do not. Finally he talks on mental health and that most of these shooters are suffering from mental health issues. We need to revamp our health services instead of passing more laws which won’t change the status quo.

Take a look at the video yourself here.

So what do you think ….

Join our Forum to discuss our gun rights today! Sign and spread the petition to block Feinstein’s ban here. Remember, it’s free to sign, in the confirmation page of your signature iPetitions may solicit you for a donation. Ignore it.