Every country that has banned guns has taken away the right of the private citizen a basic means of protection. To take away the right to protect ourselves as responsible people can and will only lead to the total eroding of all the rights that many have died for over the past several centuries in this country. To remove this right is to start to remove many, if not all, of the basic rights that make this country a free country. Remember this; the price of freedom is great; it is never given freely and it is forever being paid.
If the Second Amendment is changed due to pressures from people that have not understood the lessons that history has left us which amendment is next? Probably the Right to Assemble, but all of them are at stake. Are we willing to forfeit these rights? When the government no longer trusts the people that they are supposed to serve, we are in a great deal of danger. Parole boards trust convicted felons not to break the law again with only their word as a guarantee, but some in the many governing bodies strongly believe that the average law abiding citizen cannot be trusted to possess a firearm. Do the law enforcement personnel want to give up their weapons at the end of the day? Are they going to feel safe? Are the judges who preside in our criminal courts going to feel safe with no means to protect their own lives and property or will they be exempt from any such restrictions? Are we to believe that the criminal element will no longer have the desire to commit crimes just because those of us that have lived as law abiding citizens have given up a right that was promised and guaranteed to us by our founding fathers? Who are we going to rely on to protect law-abiding people against the lawless? The law enforcement agencies only show up after a crime is committed. Is the government ready and willing to take total responsibility to keep me safe without putting me in a cage for my own good? I think not and I doubt that any intelligent person is going to buy this argument either.
The following video illustrates the importance of being able to a firearm as guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. There is a reason the Right to Bear Arms was placed in the Constitution by our founding fathers. It was not for hunting, it was for self-defense against those that would do us harm.
Gun Control Public Service Announcement
If the government fails then what recourse will I have? Will I be able to sue the government for failing to protect me from some criminal? We Americans already have to work for the first five months just to earn the money to pay for our taxes. We do not need higher taxes to pay the government to post a guard at every house so that I can feel safe.
What we need is an attitude in the law that requires an individual to be responsible for his or her actions. Always act responsible because you will always be responsible for your actions. It is too bad this attitude is not reflected in the way people make their decisions during political elections or the way politicians make laws by which the public must live. What we need is not another law, but another attitude. A lot of people do not have any respect for the law. They will have respect for an attitude in our legal system that ensures swift justice and not a lot of playing around. We could eliminate most of the serious crime in this country if we just got serious. The problem here lies that in order to do this, we must punish the person who broke the law, not the citizen who was forced to protect themselves. Nobody wants to be blamed for punishing a person that is a victim. Therefore when a person is claimed to be a victim of society, there is a growing attitude that all of society is to blame for criminal activity and not the person who actually committed the crime without regard for anyone else. This is an irresponsible attitude. God gave every living being the right to the consequences of their own actions. It is high time that society did the same!
When will some group be singled out as the root cause for the problems of the day? One of the first things that are always done when a government no longer trusts the people is to disarm the citizens. I am not saying that the United States of America will become a dictatorship, but by requiring firearms to be registered sets a very bad precedent that could lead to papers necessary to travel from state to state like in the old Soviet Union and many other countries today and in a not so recent past. What is the government going to do with the information on the registration forms? The only thing that registration can do is tell the authorities who owns any specific firearms. What is the government going to do with this information? Does anybody believe that this is going to lessen crime one bit? Where do we give up our freedoms for what may be perceived as someone taken care of us and making decisions in our favor? When we give up the right to decide for ourselves, we give up our Freedom, Liberty and Security. Nobody likes to be told what to do, but this is just what some people want the government to do; make decisions for our own good. This is not freedom, it is slavery.
I am an adult and I can make my own decisions. I live my life as a proper citizen without breaking the law. Taking away my personal rights for something that I have not done will only cause the decay of all of the liberties that every one of us holds dear. It is just like dominoes: when one falls, it is just a matter of time before they all have fallen... and then we will have nothing.
A people will only have the government that they deserve. In Germany in the 1920's and 1930's nobody cared enough to stop from placing the blame for all that was bad on a group of people that were seen as easy targets. When it was too late, tens of millions of people had suffered and died. When the people in Russia who fought in the 1917 and 1919 revolution finally got what they were demanded, they died by the tens of millions at the hands of the people they had placed in power over the citizenry. These are but two examples. The same story can be told of numerous other countries such as China, Cuba, Romania, Poland, Hungary, and the former East Germany and these are just to name a few. We can blame the problems of our society on anyone or anything that we would like to but in the end we are solely responsible for our own actions and decisions.
--David Meyer--
Still Think the Second Amendment is an Outdated Concept?
Who will be there to protect potential victims when the followers of Kamau Kambon decide to take action to actively support these ideals and kill white people? Law enforcement will not be there to protect you. How do you protect yourself and your family from this threat? Individuals need to be prepared to defend themselves. No one else is going to do it for them. Outsiders and other members of the law enforcement community will only be there to transport the bodies of the victims.
This is one of the many reasons for the Second Amendment.
Second Amendment Story
You are sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you are in trouble. In your country, most private ownership of firearms were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry because authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that is nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you are the portrait of an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are seen as choirboys. Their friends and relatives cannot find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves are transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he will probably win. The media publishes reports that your home was burglarized several times in the past and that you have been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges against you are not reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It does not take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April 2000, he was convicted and is serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but also all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.
Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, as criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few handguns still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who did not were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they failed to comply. Police later bragged that they had taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens, none of which were harming or threatening anyone.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed, just like cars. Sound familiar?
It is time to wake up! There is a reason why our Founding Fathers put the Right to Bear Arms in United States Constitution second only to Freedom of Speech. The right to protect ourselves is a major aspect of Liberty. The Founding Fathers knew an armed population gave the citizens the power to protect themselves from threats that include but are not limited to a power hungry government intent on enslaving its citizens. The Constitution was written specifically to limit the rights of the government, not the rights of American citizens.
As a final thought, consider the following:
Handgun Control, Inc. - One of many liberal organizations that would rather see a woman's lifeless in an alley with her pantyhose knotted around her neck than to see her alive with a gun in her hand! If that is not the case, then they must believe that a woman does not have the mental capacity or the physical ability to properly use a gun for defense. Why else would they deliberately stand in the way of a woman, or anyone else, from owning a firearm for self-defense?
If you want to enslave people, the first thing you do is to ensure they cannot defend themselves.
--TOP--
From a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer:
I had a doctor's appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions:
Did I feel stressed?
Did I feel threatened?
Did I feel like doing harm to someone?
The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered yes to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security. Looks like they are going after the vets first.
Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have? Be forewarned and be aware.
The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and gun owners to be potential terrorists. Whether you are a gun owner veteran or not, you have been warned.
Keep in mind this is what happens when the government controls healthcare. All of your personal health information is available to other government agencies.
If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them.
Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.
For your viewing pleasure, here is a video that is a bit more fun. Enjoy...
