Advertisements
Home

Patrick Henry – Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Leave a comment

Tuesday, the 8th of November will decide if we have Liberty or see the Death of  Freedom and America.

This election is that serious as it is a matter of life and death.

111669-004-41FB3C1F

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Advertisements

Four famous people who almost served on the Supreme Court

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

I did not know this.

The call from the President to become a Supreme Court Justice is a hard offer to refuse. But not everyone in history has accepted it. Here’s a look at four famous cases where prominent people passed on joining the most-powerful court in the land.

passedonscPatrick Henry

The revolutionary firebrand apparently was offered the position of Chief Justice of the United States in late 1795 after John Jay resigned and John Rutledge failed as a recess appointment.Letters from Light Horse Harry Lee to Henry indicated an offer was coming from President Washington to serve on the Court. Henry didn’t respond for several weeks, leading Washington to call the incident “embarrassing in the extreme” to Lee in a separate letter. Henry had already declined the position of Secretary of State and he didn’t wind up as Chief Justice when Oliver Ellsworth was confirmed instead.

Thomas Dewey

The two-time Republican nominee for President (in 1944 and 1948) was reportedly considered for the Supreme Court by Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson, turning down both their offers to join the Court. According to the New York Times obituary for Earl Warren, Eisenhower offered the Chief Justice position in 1953 to John Foster Dulles and Dewey first, and both men declined. Warren then accepted. A decade later, Johnson reportedly offered Dewey a Supreme Court seat after Dewey didn’t support Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, and Dewey declined again.

Howard Baker

Senator Baker was a Majority Leader and White House Chief of Staff, but Baker also had a chance to join the Supreme Court in 1971 at the request of President Richard Nixon. Baker had been an attorney in Tennessee before winning a 1966 U.S. Senate election there. Five years later, President Nixon made Baker his first choice for one of two positions on the Court, as a replacement for Hugo Black or John Marshall Harlan.

According to John Dean, also of Watergate notoriety, Baker paused about accepting the appointment as he weighed the financial aspects of a Supreme Court position. Nixon moved on to William Rehnquist as Baker’s replacement as Baker delayed.  But it was then Baker in 1973, as a Senator at the Watergate hearings, who asked Dean the famous question, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

Mario Cuomo

The former presidential candidate and New York Governor was openly mentioned by Bill Clinton as a possible Supreme Court Justice when Clinton was a presidential candidate. A year later, Cuomo released a statement to Clinton and the public about his Supreme Court aspirations. “I do not know whether you might indeed have nominated me, but because there has been public speculation … I think I owe it to you to make clear now that I do not wish to be considered,” Cuomo said.

In 2012, Clinton confirmed that he had made the offer to Cuomo while he was President. And in a prior book, George Stephanopoulos said a deal was within minutes of being struck when Cuomo changed his mind about the nomination in 1993. Instead, Ruth Bader Ginsburg received the call from the White House.

Happy Birthday America July 4, 1776

1 Comment

 

 

 

 

 

Words of wisdom by Patrick Henry.

 

fourth-of-july-650

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts Governor Tightens Rope on Gun Owner Rights

3 Comments

This is from BarbWire.

The DemocRats just can not understand Shall not be infringed.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! Patrick Henry March 23,1775

 

As we have made mention of before, our Declaration of Independence defined clearly that our rights come from God and those rights are unalienable. However, in the federal government and in many states, lawmakers think they are authorized to write laws that infringe on the unalienable rights of their citizens. The latest example is Massachusetts. Governor Deval Patrick signed a new, sweeping gun bill into law last week that could be picked up by other states, which grossly oversteps the bounds of government in the restriction of firearms, and citizens need to be made aware of what is going on so that they can stand up for their rights.

MSNBC reports:

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

The law also requires the creation of an online portal for private sales to close the existing loophole. Background checks have been required nationwide since November 1993, when former President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law after battling a lengthy struggle to pass the legislation. But the decades-old measure doesn’t apply to about 40% of total gun sales that occur each day because of loopholes in the system.

The new legislation permits licensed firearms dealers to access criminal offender record information, enhances the penalty for carrying a weapon on academic premises and mandates that licensed school personnel receive at least two hours of suicide awareness and prevention training every three years.

According to Governor Patrick, ‘Our communities and our families are safer when irresponsible gun sales and use are reduced. This legislation moves us in that direction.”

One wonders how he can prove this. That’s right, he doesn’t have to, does he? He just says it and people believe that words on a piece of paper make them safer. The truth is they don’t. In fact, in this case, they not only infringe on their rights, but will be used to keep law-abiding citizens from purchasing guns for defense, not necessarily out of the hands of criminals. This is not the right direction Americans need to be moving in.

“With the stroke of Governor Patrick’s pen today, Massachusetts is now a leader for the rest of the nation in passing common-sense gun reform while continuing to respect the Second Amendment rights we all value,” Molly Malloy, the leader of Massachusetts’ chapter of Moms Demand Action, said in a statement. “The single, most effective thing we can do to keep guns out of dangerous hands and reduce the number of Americans killed with guns every day is require criminal background checks on all sales to close the loophole that allows felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill to buy guns. Real leadership is what will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and we are grateful to have leaders on this issue taking action to protect our families in the commonwealth.”

Ah yes, Moms Demand Action. This is the same group that was thrown out of an Oklahoma Chipotle because they were incredibly rude, have used public indecency to promote their agenda, is funded by well-known nanny state proponent and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and has a spokeswoman with serious credibility problems. Yet, this same organization has absolutely no plan to take guns out of the hands of criminals in America.

Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts executive director Jim Wallace said, “So much for celebrating the historic nature of this bill. We worked tirelessly on this bill and were instrumental in getting it passed — and he can’t invite us to the bill signing ceremony? This just proves that gun owners in this state are regarded as second-class citizens just because they choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Keep in mind that not only is Massachusetts supposed to abide by the U.S. Constitution, but their own Constitution. In Article XVII of the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts State Constitution:

Notice clearly who has the rights, the people. The purpose? A common defence. Do they lose these rights when there is peace? Certainly not. There is just no provision for a standing army as it is “dangerous to liberty.” However, consider what the current occupant of the White House wants, a standing domestic army that would rival the current military we have.

n the end, whether Obama was building a domestic army or not, the people’s rights to keep and bear arms are to be protected by those put into office under their respective state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. I am an avid state’s rights guy, but I do not believe the state was given authority to infringe on what is to be an unalienable right given to people by God.

Remember, people in Boston cheered as police swat forces stormed people’s homes without a warrant following the Boston bombing. What? You don’t remember? Take a look:

Had Boston simply observed the Second Amendment and their own Constitution, the citizens of Boston would have been adequately equipped in this instance of the search for the Boston bomber and not subject to the tyranny witnessed in the video above.

Our founders would be rolling over in their graves at the amount of arms restrictions being imposed upon the people of the various states across our land. The question I pose is, why are the American people standing for it? Why are you not up in arms literally, over these unlawful laws that restrict your rights? Perhaps I need to look no further than the television, the big game, the hedonistic attitude that has absorbed our land. Or perhaps, God has simply allowed us to wander aimlessly in a stupor because of our forgetting Him. May He grant to the people of America the blessing of repentance and may He once again restore us to greatness for His name’s sake.

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/08/19/massachusetts-governor-tightens-rope-gun-owner-rights/#G6gOlKfGbeo2OsHy.99

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

1 Comment

 

This is a speech given by Patrick Henry on March 23,1775.

 

700_patrick_henry

 

 

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.

It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms usinto beasts.

Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House.

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.

Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir.

These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it?

Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other.

They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject?

Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on.

We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?

Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction?

Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.

The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.

There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish?

What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Helping Our Anti-Gun Friends With Facts

Leave a comment

This is from GunNews.com.

 

 


educatethemasses

Gun News

I am done with the gun debate. Much like arguing with a five year-old, the only thing that the gun debate does is create unneeded stress and gives the gun-grabbers undeserved attention. Facts are on our side of this issue, while the anti-gunners use emotion and knee-jerk reactions in an attempt to rally support for their attempt at undoing the Second Amendment. I want to explore and lay out where they are mistaken, ill-informed or even lying about the Second Amendment and guns in general. My hope is that you will share this article with your friends on the other side and let’s help our anti-gun friends understand through logic and reason why they are wrong. I am going to go through the most popular of arguments and answer these questions and concerns with fact and reason—not emotion!

The Second Amendment was written to form a Militia

This statement is partially true. The Second Amendment had multiple purposes in mind and one of those purposes was to enable citizens of this nation to form a militia. However, this was not the only intention of the Second Amendment. The founding fathers had just lived through the tyranny that an oppressive government can inflict, and they understood the need to be able to fight back. They also knew that a person needs to be able to defend their family from criminal elements. Remember, crime has always been around and the need to defend one’s self has been around since the dawn of time. Thomas Jefferson said (Quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria):

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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.”

The founding fathers were painfully aware of what happens to people who are unarmed. Unarmed people are targets; they always have been and always will be. The highest rates of violent crime in this country are in cities that also have the strictest gun laws. Common sense dictates that criminals by their very nature do not obey laws—they break them.

Why do you need an assault rifle?

Great question! The first correction that needs to be made is that there is no such thing as an assault rifle. This term was coined by the media to inspire fear in the uneducated masses. I spent six years in the United States Army and never once was my M-16 referred to as an assault rifle—it is simply a rifle. The problem the media and the anti-gunners face is that “rifle” doesn’t sound as menacing and scary as “assault rifle”. A rifle can be described by caliber, action and body style. Caliber is simply the size of bullet that it shoots. For example an M-16 shoots a 5.56/.223 caliber bullet; this same bullet has been used for many years by varmint hunters, deer hunters as well as target shooters. There is nothing special or any more deadly about it.

The action refers to how the ammunition is fed through the firearm. There are semi-automatic, bolt, pump, lever and single actions. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages. None of these actions are any more deadly than the other.

But why does anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? The question implies that need is a requirement for firearm ownership and this is simply not the case. The Second Amendment does not specify the requirement of need in order to own or carry a firearm. The Second Amendment allows for personal choice when it comes to firearm ownership. Think of the First Amendment; do we reallyneed CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC? The correct answer is that need has nothing to do with freedom of speech and press. The founding fathers wanted differing opinions heard just as they wanted citizens to own and use whichever firearms the citizen saw fit. Our Bill of Rights is not needs-based; in fact, it is the antithesis of needs-based. Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it only protects them from governmental overreach.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

– William Pitt

Expanded Background Checks Will Prevent Sandy Hook Type Incidents.

This logic is based on the assumption that the person who is going to commit a heinous act is going to buy his firearm legally. It also assumes that the potential shooter has committed crimes in the past that would preclude him from passing a background check. Many of the animals that have perpetrated these acts of violence have clean criminal histories. According to the ATF and the FBI, in 2010 there were 6 million firearm background checks made; 73,000 were rejected. After a rejection, the check goes through an appeals process and review by ATF field offices. Of those 73,000 denials, a whopping 63 were ever prosecuted. The numbers do not lie. Background checks are not going to keep criminals from getting guns. Background checks just make people feel like they are being protected by the government.

If all public places were gun-free zones, we would all be safer.

Unfortunately, this statement is false, and history proves it. What do the following have in common: Sandy Hook Elementary School, Columbine High School, Fort Hood, Century Movie Theater Aurora, Colorado, the USS Mahan, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, and the United States Post Offices? They are all gun-free zones and have been the site of mass shootings. Gun-free zones just make occupants easy targets for psychopaths. I would be the happiest person in the world if we could live in a crime-free world, but we don’t, and I really do not foresee a time when we will.

Gun-free zones are a political tool used to give the American People a sense of security. The problem is that it is a false sense. Gun-free zones allow killers to commit their crimes, knowing that they will not be accosted by armed resistance. Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, said, “… arms … discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…. Horrid mischief would ensue, were [the law-abiding citizens] deprived the use of them.”

Isn’t it better to just call 911 than use a gun?

It depends on the situation. There are times when calling 911 is an appropriate first step. For example, your car is being stolen from your driveway with nobody inside, you come home from an outing and your front door is open, you see two people fighting in a parking lot etc. However, there are times that calling 911 first will only get you killed or badly injured. Someone is carjacking you, you are in your home and someone attempts to break in, or someone approaches you with a knife or gun. If you rely on the authorities for your protection, you are asking to become a statistic and a victim. The police do the best they can, but they are severely understaffed. I live in a city of 115,000 people and there are barely 100 police officers. I would imagine that at any given time there might be 10 to 12 officers on patrol. What do you think the chances are that they can be there the instant your life is in peril? I would say very slim.

Isn’t it dangerous to have firearms around kids?

It is more likely that your child will be killed in a car accident or drown in a swimming pool than injured by a firearm—this according to the CDC. If i were to ask you to name the top five causes of unnatural deaths in people 0-25 years of age, what would you say?  Do you think guns would make the top five?  My bet was that they would.  Interestingly enough, according the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), this answer would be wrong on all counts.  They have published a document that breaks down deaths by age group, a major cause and specific cause.  Firearms never make the top five in any of the age groups, especially children.  So what is killing our kids?

Motor Vehicles are number one in every age group. Ages 1-4 29% die in car accidents, 28.7% die from drowning.  Fire/burn is number 3 with 13% while suffocation, pedestrian/other, fall, natural/environment, Poisoning, struck by or against, other land transportation and unspecified, all come before firearms.  In this age group, firearms account for 1.0% of the deaths.

Ages 5-9 have car accidents 50.8%, drowning 13.5%, fire burn 12.8% and suffocation, other land transport, pedestrian, fall and other transport all before firearms.  Firearms account for 1.4% of the deaths.

Ages 10-14, car accidents 56.6%, drowning 10.2%, fire/burn 5.8%, with other land transport, suffocation, poisoning all before firearms.  Firearms account for 2.6% of the deaths.

Ages 15-24, car accidents 67.5%, poisoning 15.7%, drowning 4.2% and land transport, fall all coming before firearms.  Firearms make up 1.3% of the deaths.

With these statistics, it is obvious that firearms are not the evil that they been made out to be. But, we in the gun community are doing all that we can top make sure that our children are safe.

Why do you need high-capacity magazines?

The real question is why do you believe that “high capacity” magazines are more dangerous than non-high capacity magazines? First off, there is no such thing as high-capacity magazines. Politicians have arbitrarily selected a capacity and declared it evil and inherently dangerous. Sadly, if a person has decided that they want to create havoc and harm scores of innocent people, a magazine with 15 bullets or 10 bullets really does not make a difference. This question also comes back to the question of “need”. Need is not a requirement when exercising our constitutional rights. Do we “need” so many religions? Do we “need” so many newspapers, websites and networks? I think you get the point.

Wouldn’t the suicide rate in the United Sates go down if we had stricter gun laws?

The answer to this can be found by looking at Japan. The Japanese lead the world in suicides per capita and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Guns are not causing people to commit suicide—mental illness is. I have a very deep understanding of mental illness because of close family members, and I can tell you that if a person is determined to kill themselves, they will do it—with or without a gun. One thing we can do as gun owners is to make sure that we secure our guns the best that we can, but again—a determined person will not be stopped. Mental illness is an issue that needs much more discussion in our country.

I am really scared of guns and I do not want them around.

I understand this sentiment. The beauty of the constitution is that you have the choice whether or not you have guns in your home. But, before you give up on firearms, ask a friend who owns guns to take you shooting. As an instructor, I take new people out all the time, and at first, they are terrified–but as the day goes on and they get to experience first hand that there is nothing to be afraid of, they go from scared to enthusiastic shooters. If you don’t have a friend with a gun, look for a local NRA class. I teach these, and they are perfect for beginners.

I hope this helps. It will at least give us somewhere to start with our friends who are anti-gun or maybe just not educated about guns and the Second Amendment.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

– Patrick Henry

THE COMMUNIST INFLUENCE

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot UpDate.

The Communist Influence is slowly taking over every part of our lives today.

It ranges from Obamacare our schools, Obama’s Mandates,our schools,the movies and political correctness.

We need to stand up as one and put a stop to the commie influences while we still have our country.

What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to purchase at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Patrick Henry March 1775

In his book “Rules for Radicals,” Saul Alinsky writes on the power tactics to be used against a political opponent for the purpose of breaking them down and destroying their reputation. One of these tactics characterizes nearly everything we have experienced since Barack Obama has been inaugurated as he and his administration have successfully used it to blame republicans for everything. The very tactic itself speaks to the wicked nature of Alinsky as a man, and a community organizer. It goes right to the heart in describing the goals of those seeking political power as it virtually eliminates any opposition while painting them out as hypocrites. This tactic is rule # 4 in Alinsky’s list of power tactics.

Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.

What Alinsky is essentially saying is that an opponent’s values can be reinterpreted, or redefined in order to make them appear undesirable; and thus, they can be used to make any opposition appear as if they are “against” whatever initiatives are being sold to the public. This is something Barack Obama and the left wing in general, have done masterfully as they have convinced a huge portion of the population that America is the evil empire and capitalism is oppressive. Barack Obama’s reference of our Constitution as being a document that hinders his progress is another good example. He said the Constitution does too much to limit what government can’t do, and not enough to describe what it must do on your behalf. Sadly, many Americans who have been educated by radical, communist sympathizing hippies have fallen for this lie and have been conned into demanding “social change.”

It is this tactic in and of itself that describes Barack Obama for exactly what he is, a communist.  Unfortunately, our left wing controlled education system has virtually ignored the atrocious history of communism as one of aggression and mass genocide, and has successfully painted it out to be one of peace and victimization at the hands of western imperialism. They have successfully done this because the above described tactic is itself, communist in its origin. The Soviet Union, in its efforts to implement worldwide communism, used propaganda to convince many millions that communism was about peace and that the United States was an imperialist, capitalist aggressor looking to rape the world’s nations of their natural resources. This is a strategy still being implemented today with the global warming lie.

In other words, the communist were using our number one value against us, and they were doing it very effectively in order to sway the minds of the general public in favor of communism. They were using our very “freedom” as a weapon.  During what the left has successfully labeled, and discredited as the McCarthy era, there was a great deal of documentation that was presented before the eighty second congress and the Committee of Un-American Activities. For those that may be unfamiliar with “McCarthyism,” Joseph McCarthy was a Republican Senator who claimed that there were two hundred card carrying communists who had infiltrated our government.  Recently, we have seen Florida Representative Alan West make the same accusations.  The left has since effectively discredited McCarthy as a paranoid who believed there was “a communist behind every corner.”

One of these documents has come to be known as the “Communist Peace Offensive” and it was put together by the Committee of Un-American Activities. It thoroughly describes the tactics and strategies of the communist movement back to Lenin and Stalin. One of these strategies was to use America’s culture of freedom, our free press and free speech as a tool for spreading communist propaganda. Following is an excerpt from the Communist Peace Offensive-

The Communist leaders are fully aware that propagandists, within

or without the United States, have easy access to the American public.

There is one radio for every two persons in the United States, and the

United States maintains radio freedom both as to broadcasting and

the listener’s choice of program. The American press is also free.

Thus, an American may read or listen to whatever he pleases.

 

The Communists exploit our freedom with their psychological

warfare, which finds expression in the present “peace” offensive. The

current Communist “peace” offensive has certain specific immediate

aims, which, if realized, can prove of inestimable value to the Soviet

war machine.

 

This propaganda campaign to spread communism around the globe had been so carefully orchestrated that virtually every communist affiliated organization has agreed upon its tactical implementation. –

It has received the official endorsement of the Supreme Soviet of
the U. S. S. R. The Information Bureau of the Communist and
Workers Parties (Cominform), successor to the Communist Interna-
tional, has given this campaign top priority. It has been designated
as the major effort of every Communist Party on the face of the globe,
including the Communist Party of the United States.
 
Also presented before the congress in 1963 was a document known as the 45 declared goals of the Communist Party USA, in which it can be easily ascertained that they intend to breakdown America psychologically and spiritually. The following are from this document-

Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

 Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

America, it is much easier to blow this off as some crazy conspiracy theory because acknowledging this means facing some disheartening facts. It is pretty clear however, that the events that have transpired in our nation over the past several decades, and in particular the past five years, are due to the communist influence and infiltration into our government.

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/communist-influence/#rVpWl00tIfuZjKwg.99

These are the Times that Try Men’s Souls… Tyranny Like HELL…

1 Comment

This is from Jan Morgan Media.

These times the should be concerning for all Partiots.

We need to step up and take a hold of Liberty’s hand to keep her standing.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, St. John’s Church, March 23, 1775.

America as we know her, is in critical condition. The longer we allow the disease to spread, the struggle to save her becomes more intense, complicated, and bloody.

 

Now is the time when all Americans must make a choice. It is not a time for summer soldiers and sunshine Patriots.
Liberty is under attack from every direction by multiple enemies.
Citizens can no longer sit back and expect legislators to fix the damage.
After all, those legislators are, for the most part, responsible for not fulfilling the responsibilities and mandates they promised.

In 1776, Thomas Paine penned these words…
In Valley Forge, George Washington shared them with his men.

These are the times that try mens souls… The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks, of every man and woman…

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph…. what we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly, it is the dearness only that gives everything its value, it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated…
Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/02/times-try-mens-souls-tyranny-like-hell/#6wRHDPAQuvERlVXP.99

 

Random Quotes

Leave a comment

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Imperial Washington, And A Fed Up America

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall Finance.

We need to let Imperial Washington we are going to put a stop to their crap.

 Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry – March 23, 1775

 

I just read Peggy Noonan’s most recent column and she writes about something we have been concerned about for a long time. There is something very wrong with America. Americans feel less like citizens, and more like subjects. We are dictated to, not consulted. We are told to get in line, or feel the wrath of the state.

Washington is a den of power seekers and power mongers. It probably always has been. The difference now is the size of the machine. Leviathan has grown in such size and power that unlike in past generations it can’t be ignored. It dominates life. Washington is always there.

The imperial city is run by a court. There are the Democrats and the Republicans the President and Congress, and don’t forget the Pentagon. Each tribe recognizes that so long as the state grows things get better for them. Their budgets get bigger. They get more power. Of course the rest of America pays for this expansion.

The court is dominated by those who come from the political class. This political class also dominates the judicial courts, the media, the universities, to a large extent even our elementary and high schools (via low level functionaries), and many of our churches. They are the guardians of the big government dream. And they are willing to go to the wall for this dream – because they’ve got nothing else.

It’s a sobering realization. A significant part of our population now sees the state as a type of god which is to be worshiped. To which alms are to be given, to which mind is given, and life if need be.

A friend of mine recently brought this quote from Ludwig von Mises to my attention.

 “They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!”

Boy doesn’t that about sum it up?

The march toward the all encompassing state seems relentless. But it need not be. Thankfully we have new technologies which can counter the snowball of statism. But we must use this technology vigorously and protect its free and open access. A renaissance of classical liberal thought is possible, but it won’t be easy.

We have the numbers, and unlike in times past the average person also has almost the same access to information as the political class. This fundamentally changes the equation even if the political class believes it still has the momentum of history. The momentum can be shifted from the current 20th century statist direction to a 21st century open source, classically liberal one with sustained effort. We are already headed in that direction. You reading this is testament to that.

So though I share Ms. Noonan’s despair to some extent, I am also optimistic. There is huge opportunity for positive change in this country. The political class at its core knows it’s intellectually (and perhaps in other ways) bankrupt. It knows that if a critical mass of people just say “NO!” they’d be done. The game would be up. The wall would fall down.

The Wall cc

We don’t have to live under a regime of morality defined by political correctness. We don’t have to accept that an ever larger state is for some bizarre reason considered “progressive.” We don’t have to accept a Federal Reserve which bails out banks and saddles us with debt while enabling the growth of an unresponsive and burdensome state. We don’t have to accept a government which dismisses us as it says it is representing us. We don’t have to live as subjects. We can live as citizens – again. We can be free. We were born with this right.

Click here for Peggy Noonan’s op-ed.

Read more at Against Crony Capitalism.org

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: