Making The Case For INCREASED Gun Ownership

There is a city in Cobb County, GA called Kennesaw  – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

The city's website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populous counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

Statically, it has been shown that - nationwide - as legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens increases, violent crime decreases.  Yet the left (including the socialist-dominated United Nations) constantly argues for greater restrictions on private firearms ownership.

There is a discomfiting pattern developing in the USA.  One of increased government intervention in, and control of, our Constitutional rights. One of collusion on an International scale, and one which could very easily permit Obama to abrogate his presidential responsibilities in favor of UN demands. The left-wing Obama administration is "chomping at the bit" for an opportunity to sign on to the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. That way - when the international gun grab begins - Obama can maintain a high degree of deniablility from the actions. There is much more to the UN ATT than meets the eye. It is worded in such a fashion that loopholes large enough to drive a military tank through exist... possibly for the purpose of actually driving military tanks through them, and down Mainstreet, USA, as the jackbooted, blue-helmeted UN thugs kick down doors and confiscate whatever they determine to be "illegal firearms". The goal of the "United Nations" is WORLD DOMINATION, and the majority of the 192 country/states that make up the UN are inimical to the USA, our successes, our freedom, and our way of life in general.

Contact your Senators and demand that they OPPOSE the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. It's not good for American citizens, and it's not good for the USA. In WWII, the Japanese decided against a land battle within the USA because - according to Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy - "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It is our ability, as a nation, to defend our country, our culture, our sovereignty and our Constitution, particularly at the individual level, that keeps us free from land invasions (other than via our southern border, anyway. Mexico has been invading us for decades!).

The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part 2 of 2 Parts

Today is Thanksgiving, and we, as citizens of these United States of America, have a lot for which to be thankful. First and foremost are our protections under our Constitution. With that in mind, let's pursue Part 2 of my topic. (This blog is not meant as the "be all and end all" for firearms. Rather, it is an introduction covering only the basics.)

We've established that you have a "right to keep and bear arms", and that you may have determined you need to exercise that right by legally purchasing a firearm for home defense. Again, there are significant variations in state laws regarding such purchases, and the storage and use of a firearm, so be familiar with the laws of your state prior to buying a gun.

Let's begin by exploring the question "How much gun do I really need?" There are so many to choose from - long guns, handguns, shotguns, rifles, revolvers, auto-loaders, single-shot, high capacity - sometimes just the thought of selecting can be mind-boggling. As far as caliber goes, currently there's everything from a .22 caliber to a .50 caliber, and pricing runs the gamut from dirt cheap to ridiculously expensive (the main thing to keep in mind is to always buy the best you can afford). As with most things you buy, you pretty much "get what you pay for". Dirt cheap. more often than not, is unreliable and frequently may be downright dangerous. Quality can be had - inexpensively - if you know how to shop.

For a home defense long gun, I would recommend the Mossberg 500 in 12 gauge in any of its variations. They are reasonably priced at $250-$350 - if you shop around, and are as reliable as a Remington 870 costing $330-$1,100. You may feel that the recoil generated by a 12ga is too much to handle though, so don't be afraid to consider a 20gauge. One of the most intimidating sounds in a darkened house, is the unnerving sound of a pump action shotgun having the slide "racked", and an intruder can't tell the difference between the sound of a 12ga or a 20gauge slide being activated. Personally, I have a Mossberg "riot gun" that's 35 years old, and still works like the day it was new. Quality does not have to bankrupt you, and a short-barreled shotgun is excellent in a confined space, such as the hallways and rooms of a "normal" household structure. The main advantage of a shotgun over a firearm using a metallic cartridge and a solid projectile, is the dispersal of the pellet payload, and a minimal chance of over-penetration. One doesn't have to be an expert marksman to hit a target within 30 feet. A carbine length rifle also handles fairly well indoors, but the condition of over-penetration still exists. The "Glaser Safety Slug" offers a solution to over-penetration. This excellent round uses a copper jacket and it is filled with a compressed load of either #12 or # 6 lead shot. It is then capped with a round polymer ball that enhances feeding and reloading. It is now available in four rifle calibers from .223 to 30-06. The Glaser Safety Slug is recommended for the urban dweller and anyone who is concerned with over penetration.

The handgun for home defense has the advantage of being the easiest to handle in a confined space, but requires more practice and skill to use effectively than does a shotgun. A handgun also shares the rifle's potential for over-penetration. However, Glaser has handgun calibers available from .25 auto to 45 Colt. Handguns are available in calibers from .22 to .50, and the recoil increases with each upward step. Personally, I feel that any handgun of less than .38 Special caliber is "iffy", and I do not recommend the .25 auto or the .32 caliber handguns simply because they are generally considered ineffective. Although I own a few 1911's in .45acp and a couple of .357 magnums, my personal preference is for what I refer to as the "mid-class" handguns - chambered for the .38 Special and the extremely popular 9mm. The lighter recoil of the mid-class rounds facilitates quicker recovery on-target, and placement of a slightly quicker, more accurate second shot if needed.
Felt recoil is a combination of several factors - the caliber and weight of the handgun, the weight of the projectile, the amount of powder in the case, etc. Since most people buy their ammunition "off the shelf", as opposed to loading their own, they have no control over the amount or type of powder in their ammo. They do, however, have control over three factors: the caliber and weight of the handgun they choose, and the weight of the bullet in the ammo they choose. Generally speaking, the larger the caliber the greater the felt recoil; the lighter the gun weight the greater the felt recoil; the heavier the bullet, the greater the felt recoil. And, in the case of a firearm, the word "magnum" means even bigger felt recoil. The best handgun for home defense is one with which you can consistently hit a target within 30 feet. Some people find the recoil of even a mid-class round to be intimidating, while others can easily deal with the recoil of a .44 magnum. If you believe you would be bothered by the perceived recoil of a .40 caliber (or larger) handgun, then buy in the .38 Special/9mm class, and get something with a 3"-4" barrel length (a bit more weight, a bit less recoil than those cute little snub-nose revolvers).
Who makes the best guns? Ask that question in a room full of gun enthusiasts and you will start a never-ending discussion. We all have our personal likes and dislikes for rifles, shotguns and handguns. In sporting rifles and shotguns, the most popular names are Mossberg, Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Savage and Marlin in no particular order. In tactical rifles and shotguns, you have the same popular names (and throw in Kel-Tec, who is coming on strong) - plus 100 or so others, most of whom are "custom builders").
The list of leaders in handgun manufacturing is a bit longer and introduces some other names. Glock, Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, SIG, CZ, Heckler & Koch, Taurus, Kahr and on and on. A handgun must fit your hand properly! If it doesn't feel comfortable in your hand, or if it doesn't point naturally, you may as well be holding a brick. A relatively recent innovation in handgun design is the interchangeable grip/back-strap, which can resolve fitment problems for almost anybody, no matter what size your hand.
I own 15 handguns from 8 different manufacturers, and enjoy them all, but... I have a personal preference for the Glock pistols. They fit my hand, they point very well, they consistently hit where they are pointed, and Glock pistols are virtually indestructible: dropped from an airplane at 500ft into a field recovered and fired; run over by a truck picked up and fired; buried "naked" in soil for 2 years, dug up, hosed off and fired; and 1,000 rounds put through one in 14 minutes and it never failed to fire. G L O C K - that's how I spell dependability.
But, the bottom line is - get what works for you. Fit, function, and affordability... those are the key considerations.

The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part I of 2 Parts

And now for something completely different...

Most Americans with any interest in their Constitutional rights, are at least familiar with the wording of Amendment II. It's pretty straight-forward: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Today there are those who would argue the semantics of the Second Amendment, while ignoring its intent. How does one define a "well regulated militia"? That depends upon where one looks for their definition of the word "militia" (the "well regulated" part could easily be construed as a reference to the inclusion of prunes in their diet)...

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Definition of MILITIA

1

a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

However, current federal law defines "militia" thusly:

USC TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The government therefore basically defines the "militia" (after cutting through and eliminating all the political smoke) as being composed of: "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." and blah, blah, blah. Paragraph 311(b)(2) essentially says the "unorganized militia" are those able-bodied males, ages 17-45 whose only other qualification is that they are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Ageism aside, today that's roughly 61 million males that qualify as "militia"!

The Japanese had no real desire to invade the United States during WWII. Why? Because, as Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II, said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." His statement was an acknowledgment that because of the Second Amendment the American people are well-armed, and we have significant experience in the use of firearms. The Second Amendment is also the only one that insures we retain all the other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights! But, enough about the Constitution. Just believe, as I do... that, if the Second is modified or repealed, all the others will be in constant jeopardy. Here's what the U.N. thinks about our "right to keep and bear arms":

"As you enter the Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel."

The Second Amendment fits hand-in-glove with the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now you have not only "the right to keep and bear arms", but also "the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects", but the Fourth is primarily a prohibition of government searches and seizures. Logically extending that prohibition, if the government can't do it then neither can some crack-head burglar! So, what do you do to protect yourself and your family? To insure a level playing field, and perhaps gain a lifesaving advantage, you may buy a gun. But, before you do that, there are a few questions you need to answer:

1. Do I have the mindset necessary to actually use a gun, in an action that - quite possibly - could result in my taking the life of another human being? (If you cannot truthfully answer Yes to this question, do not buy a gun. Go to your local Big 5 sporting goods store and buy a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.)

2. If I must use a gun in the protection of myself and/or my family or others, am I willing to face the consequences of my actions? (Once again, Yes is the only acceptable answer to this question. There probably will be some consequences. How many, and exactly what those consequences may be will vary from state to state. Expect, as a minimum, some intensive questioning from one of your local law enforcement agencies. At the other end of the "scales of justice", expect long-term housing to be provided for you by the state, and possibly an early death by execution.) The laws vary from state to state as to what constitutes "appropriate and necessary use of deadly force". Be very familiar with the laws of your state of residence!

If you answered No to either of the above questions, you may stop reading now and go hug Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. The rest of you may now move on to a few practical questions.

What type of gun do I need? There are several types of guns from which to select the one that's right for your intended purpose. The fall into two general categories: "long guns" - which are rifles and shotguns, and "handguns" - pistols and revolvers. What you need is entirely up to you, but it must be a gun with which you are comfortable, and one with which you can repeatedly hit your intended target. Here are what I consider to be the main characteristics of firearms...

For use as in-home defense, either a long gun or a handgun will do the job. There are also advantages and disadvantages to all of them. Rifles and shotguns weigh considerably more than most handguns, and may prove to be unwieldy in confined spaces such as hallways. Generally speaking, rifles are also more powerful than most handguns, and over-penetration may result. That means that, even if you hit your intended target, the projectile may pass through and strike someone not involved in the burglary/robbery/home-invasion. If you miss your target, the projectile will, in all probability, penetrate one or more walls, increasing the possibility of striking an innocent bystander. For home defense maneuverability, a carbine-length barrel (generally accepted as a rifle barrel under 20" in length) will improve maneuverability. However, caliber-for-caliber the potential for over-penetration remains the same. Long-barreled shotguns present the same problem for maneuverability in tight areas, but less possibility for over penetration. A short-barreled shotgun (also known as a "riot gun"), loaded with almost any upland bird shot would be a good choice for in-home defensive use. The unnerving sound of a shotgun chambering a round is almost universally recognized, and may make an intruder decide upon an immediate departure from your premises. Using pellet-filled shells, the need for precise accuracy is eliminated, and due to their dispersion pattern the potential for "collateral damage" is minimal. Most shotguns produce significant recoil, which some people find disconcerting, if not injurious.

Handguns for in-home defense have the advantage of high maneuverability, and work very well in confined spaces. They do, however, present an entirely different set of problems. There are two divisions of handguns; the auto-loading pistol (popularly, but incorrectly called "automatic pistols"), and the revolver. Auto-loaders have the advantage of increased ammunition capacity per load. Generally, an auto holds from 7-19 rounds of ammunition per magazine, whereas most revolvers hold 5-6 rounds of ammunition per cylinder load. Handguns take significantly more practice in order to gain marksman-like proficiency, than do a rifle or shotgun. Auto-loaders may be almost impossible for people with weaker hands to actuate the slide, which is necessary to make the pistol ready to fire. Many women, and men with arthritis (or even relatively minor hand injuries), find this to be true - after they have purchased an auto-loading pistol. Auto-loaders also have somewhat of a reputation for being less reliable than revolvers, although if properly maintained today's quality auto-loaders are extremely reliable. On the other hand, revolvers, if properly maintained, have fewer moving parts to fail, and are at least theoretically more reliable.

Think about these things while I work on Part Two - How Much Gun Do I Really Need?

First, Second and Fourth Amendments To Our Constitution? Kiss Them Goodbye!

Kenneth Melson, the acting director of the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms (ATF), is expected to step down in the wake of the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme in which weapons were sold to Mexico’s drug cartels.

"Melson, who has been acting director since April 2009, is likely to resign within the next couple of days", says CNN.

Under Operation Fast and Furious and its sister program Project Gunrunner, about 2,500 weapons were sold to so-called straw buyers, who in turn sold them on to the cartels. The idea was that it would allow the ATF to trace the weapons and discover who was selling them on.

But the plan went disastrously wrong and the weapons have been used in at least 150 shootings. The ATF now admits it lost track of two-thirds of the guns. The "plan went disastrously wrong" because of disastrous decisions made by those responsible for enforcement of our firearms laws!

The controversy came to a head in December when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona and two weapons discovered at the scene were found to have been part of Project Gunrunner. Brian Terry was only one of several law enforcement officers and civilians who have been murdered by guns sold illegally to these straw buyers... sold at the direction of ATF agents.

President Barack Obama has acknowledged that the plan was flawed. “There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made. If that's the case then we'll find out and we'll hold somebody accountable,” he said in March. Obama said he had no prior knowledge of the operation.

I don't think that having "no prior knowledge" is an acceptable excuse from the Head Monkey of any organization, much less the Federal Government. After all, a military commander can be held accountable for the actions of all the men who serve beneath him, why is Obama any different. And, Obama is the cherry on the top of the chain of command sundae. Certainly underlings wouldn't be allowed to do anything as illegal as knowingly encouraging firearms sales to those who are fully expected to transfer control of those firearms to Mexican drug cartels. But the ATF DID! They coerced law-abiding, federally-licensed firearms dealers into making these otherwise illegal sales. How did they manage to do that? The ATF determines who does - or does not - get issued a license to sell firearms. You can probably work out the intricacies of the "how" question for yourself.

I mentioned in a recent blog that politicians will "create the conditions" if none exist "to support their claims". The Obama administration is, almost to a man, anti-Second Amendment, and virulently against any form of private gun ownership in the USA. Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung were smart enough to recognize that the only way to enslave their people was to remove their means of resistance, and put all the firearms in the hands of their military.

Would our military support a government that turns against the will of the people? Would our military attack the civilian population? There is a little-known, and never taught, historical precedent for exactly such an action by our military.

In the spring-summer of 1932 - in the midst of the Great Depression - roughly 43,000 people descended upon Washington D.C. - approximately 17,000 WWI veterans, their families and "affiliated groups", demanding immediate cash payment of their service certificates. According to the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act" of 1924, Congress entitled each veteran to a "bonus pay" of $1.00 per day (not to exceed $500) for each day of domestic service, and $1.25 per day (not to exceed $625) for each day of overseas service. Amounts of $50 or less were paid immediately. These were Americans who had served our country honorably when it called upon them, yet they were unable to provide for their families... while the government wanted to sit on the bonuses that they were promised until 1945.

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. The D.C. police were met with resistance, shots were fired, and two veterans were wounded, only to die later. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the Army to clear the veterans' campsite. Two men touted as American "heroes" were dispatched to do the deed - Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, who commanded the infantry and cavalry, backed by six tanks, and then-Major George S. Patton who led the cavalry charge. The Bonus Army veterans, with their wives and children, were driven out of Washington D.C. and their shelters and belongings burned. And that should answer the question of "Would our military attack the civilian population?".

Thanks to the reinstatement and extension of the so-called "Patriot Act", almost any federal law enforcement agency can now ignore the requirements of the First, Second and Fourth amendments to the Constitution. They now have the Congressional approval to search and seize without a warrant, and to wire tap any and all forms of communications - like this blog - with only a letter from a federal field agent. Your mailman may bear close watching now, along with the storm troopers of the Department of Education (mentioned in a previous blog).

The BATF now has all the authority of Russia's FSB (previously known as the KGB), or Secret Police for Internal Affairs.

God save us from the sheer socialist folly of our leadership...

THE "RIGHT" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

There has been much discussion over our Constitutional guarantee, as explained in the Second Amendment, of the "right to keep and bear arms". The divergence of understanding of this right is not one of language, but rather one of reader intent. In our Constitutional Republic, unlimited power is not automatically bestowed upon the government to cavalierly change those first ten amendments - also known as "The Bill of Rights". According to the Constitution, which at least for the time being is - ostensibly - the supreme law of the land, our government gets its power from the consent of the people! And, how do we exercise that "consent"? By way of elected "representatives". These "representatives", for more than a century and a half, have represented their own best interests... which are determined by a minuscule (but wealthy, influential, and therefore powerful) portion of their constituency. Can we correct this gross deviation from the intent of our Constitution? Idealistic desires aside, my answer is probably not.

Corruption is self-propagating, and corruption is rampant within our government. Not just in the present administration, but most likely in all administrations since our founding. In the beginning it may have been just a few minor officials who were corrupt, but corruption spread like a cancer to all levels. Today, our elected officials are simply better at concealing their corruption than were their predecessors and foreign counterparts. They are like rodents, in that for every one that is exposed for corruption, there are ten others that haven't yet been discovered. There are few persons of true "honor" left in the world of politics. Why would I say such a thing? Because in today's world it takes many millions of dollars to mount an election campaign. and where do politicians get that money? For the most part from donors. Oh, sure, you donated - but your ten, twenty or even one thousand dollar donation is insignificant. If you are lucky, you will get a letter of thanks from the campaign headquarters, complete with an electronic signature from the candidate. "Every man has his price", is a well-known quote from Robert Bolt, author of "A Man For All Seasons", referring to Thomas Cromwell's corruption in the service of his King. Cromwell's price - power - was met by the King, and to fail the King would result in the removal of Cromwell's power... and his head. The less obvious, underlying tenet in that quote was a reflection of Sir Thomas More's philosophy: "The integrity of oneself should be one's major goal. Without it, life is really not worth living. Death is unpleasant, but losing that part of oneself that guides our actions on the path that we deem to be correct would be unbearable." A philosophy in which principles cost Sir Thomas his own head. Politics is ruled by the fear of possible loss... loss of stature, loss of reputation, loss of position, loss of power, loss of money, and in extreme cases, the possibility of loss of life, etc. But, I digress...

The First Amendment requires that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It establishes basic individual freedoms concerning religious belief (or non-belief), the freedom to speak against those things we determine to be inimical (even within our government) to our Constitutional freedoms, it protects the left-wing media as well as the minority right-wing media, and our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (such as forcing Obamacare upon us, and the so-called "Patriot Act", which identifies military veterans as "potential terrorists", etc.). The Second Amendment received the prestigious second spot because it insures the citizens right to protect all the other rights and freedoms established by our Constitution. A citizenry, disarmed, are called subjects. They cannot protect themselves, or their countrymen, from the whims of those who would rule rather than govern. It was said in "Cato's Letters" (England, early 1720s) that "Power is like fire. It warms, scorches or destroys, according as it is watched, provoked or increased." Power, when not watched and controlled, is also all-consuming. The more power an individual (or government) has, the more they want.

A government that is unanswerable to its people is a dictatorship. Ours has not yet reached that stage of development. They are still technically answerable to the people... they just choose to ignore our inquiries and our expressed desires! Why? Because Big Brother knows better what is right, fair and just for its people, and they will determine what rights and freedoms are appropriate for those of us with less intelligence than they, and relatively little power to change things. We have three choices: vote for a different, but no less corrupt replacement, at the ballot box; reinstate the same corrupt individual at the ballot box; or, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." As unpalatable as the third option may be to Americans, is it not better than the loss of our Constitution, our freedoms, and the consequent subjugation and enslavement of a free people? (The downside to a second American Revolution would be that all those who envy and despise us [i.e. - the 191 "United Nations"] would seize such a discordant opportunity to conquer, subjugate and enslave the survivors of such an action, and then divide the spoils among themselves.)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF "HOMELAND SECURITY"! Without it, we have none. The current administration (Obama, Clinton, Holder, et al) has designs upon dismantling as much of the Constitution as meets their desires to rule. Should they be successful in infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, all the other rights will fall like standing dominoes.

But, that's just the way I see things. Perhaps my world view is naive... idealistic... perhaps it is "radical"... or perhaps it is realistic. No matter... it is what it is. And, at least for the time being, my world view is protected under the First Amendment, which is protected by the Second Amendment. I do not encourage a second American Revolution, but I do see it as a possibility when individual freedoms are infringed upon or removed by any government.

Australians Protest Government Gun Grab - Are We Americans Next?

Most Americans, whether for or against our Constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment, are aware that our "right to keep and bear arms" is under assault from our home-grown left wingers. This, in itself, is nothing new - it has been going on for decades! What is "new" is that the radical, anti-gun left, now IS running our government. They will throw all kinds of unverified statistics into their sales pitch, in an attempt to convince the citizens that banning any/all individual firearm ownership is the key to improving personal safety and national security. Dictators around the world are in agreement - the best way to subjugate the people is first to disarm them, and the Obama administration is in full agreement with that philosophy, hence the "back door" approach to gun confiscation via the signing of a small-arms "treaty" with the U.N. It accomplishes one of Obama's primary goals, while simultaneously providing him with a high degree of deniability - "I didn't do it, the U.N. did!"

For a change, I'm not going to go into a lengthy typed rant about gun control vs. the 2nd Amendment, but watch this video to see just how secure the Australians are after their government's gun grab...

The increase in crime statistics speaks for itself. Who speaks for US?

GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS EXPOSED!

Here's a new acronym for some of you out there - IANSA. This is how they describe themselves: "The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence - a network of 800 civil society organisations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons." Sounds innocuous enough, eh? After all, nobody is in favor of gun violence. They go on to say,"IANSA seeks to make people safer from gun violence by securing stronger regulation on guns in society and better controls on arms exports. It represents the voices of civil society on the international stage, for example in the UN process on small arms, and draws on the practical experience of its members to campaign for policies that will protect human security."

The UN (which recently described its "process on small arms" activity as "Throughout October 2008, governments are attending the First Committee, which proposes and adopts resolutions on disarmament and international security. Their discussions include resolutions on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and small arms control.") is notoriously anti-gun simply because civilians owning guns are an indication of a free people, and those who enjoy freedom just may make it difficult for the UN to establish itself as the One World Government.

Sculpture outside the U.N. Secretariat in New York City

What exactly is the United Nations, and how does it relate to the United States Constitution? The United Nations is an association of non-elected representatives from approximately 192 nations around the world. During the 20th century, only 31% of the human population lived in fully democratic nations, the remaining 69% are limited democracies, communist states, one-party rule, autocracy, traditional monarchy, military junta, or have no government. Which means that more than 2/3 of the U.N. is occupied by something other than fully democratic nations. The bulk of these nation's representatives are motivated by resentment, envy, jealousy, fear and hatred of Democracy - Democratic Republics in-particular - as demanded by their leaders (possible exceptions: UK, Scandinavian countries, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand... maybe France).
You should be able to determine for yourself how the U.N. relates to the United States Constitution by now - but, in case you can't, the answer is... NOT AT ALL! The vast majority of U.N. representatives fear our Constitutional guarantees, and look for every opportunity to reduce our nation's citizens to the same subservient status as their own.

Back to IANSA... IANSA is funded by socialist-progressive organizations including George Soros' "Open Society Institute", and liberal foundations including the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. IANSA's postion on "Women and Guns" is ludicrous: "It is overwhelmingly men who buy, sell, and use small arms around the world, while women are victimised to a disproportionate degree. This dynamic is often overlooked in discussions of armed violence." There is nothing in our country stopping women from "buying, selling, or using small arms", other than lack of interest or personal choice. And armed citizens - male or female - are significantly less "victimised" than are unarmed subjects. The Brady (Gun Grab) Campaign/Center is one of the 700+ members of IANSA, and I'm certain they would have the support of Bandits Without Borders. IANSA is "on board" with the UN's "process on small arms".

In October of 2009, Obama made a couple of moves to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations. The upside of such a treaty for Obama would be deniability - "I didn't revoke the 2nd Amendment, I simply signed a UN treaty. It's not my fault they want to take your guns away." The downside for Obama and the UN is that, according to the Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by Congress before they become binding. I don't know that Congress is willing to completely abdicate our sovereignty in such a fashion... not if they're half as smart as they want us to believe they are, anyway.

Eliminating guns will not eliminate violence. Inasmuch as they are known for breaking the law, criminals will still have guns - but their innocent victims won't. They will be left defenseless. Baseball bats, golf clubs, machetes, kitchen knives, bricks, rope, ballpoint pens, lumber and automobiles have all been used as weapons to commit intentional acts of violence, but they aren't particularly effective against a criminal armed with a firearm. Your survivors can have "First Runner-up" engraved on your grave marker. Australia's relatively Draconian gun restrictions resulted in a substantial increase in violent crime. In the United States, those states with the least restrictive firearms laws have the lowest violent crime rates!

IANSA, it's members and the United Nations combined, are a greater threat to American sovereignty than many people realize. The IANSA/UN partnership is second only to the current administration in that regard.

IMPEACH OBAMA, HIS CZARS, AND THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!

THE SECOND AMENDMENT - NEAR AND DEAR!

Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The Second Amendment is near and dear to my heart. I fired my first rifle 60 years ago, under the supervision of my grandfather and an uncle, and bought my first pistol at the age of 17. Since that time I have owned, at one time or another, in excess of 75 assorted rifles and pistols - none of which have ever been used in the commission of a crime. As much enjoyment as I have gotten from the shooting sports, and, being as enthusiastic a supporter of "The Second" as I am, I have dedicated relatively little space in my blog to that powerful portion of the most powerful document on the planet - our Constitution. Nine entries, in which The Second was mentioned in some fashion, out of two hundred seventy postings. I prefer not to work it to death, and try not to be a one-issue blog, but... if I were only allowed a single issue I might well have chosen The Second.

Let's take it apart for a minute. What qualifies as "A militia"? According to the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia a militia is a - "Military organization of citizens with limited military training who are available for emergency service, usually for local defense."
Black's Law Dictionary identifies a militia as - "A group of private citizens who train for military duty to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government."
The U.S. History Encyclopedia says a militia is - "a form of citizen-based defense that shaped early American history and created an American tradition of citizen soldiery." Further on the article states, "The militia emerged from the Revolution with its military reputation mixed but its symbolic importance enhanced immeasurably. Americans no longer viewed the militia solely as a practical necessity; instead, republican thought imbued the militia with an ideological role as a guarantor of liberty, particularly in opposition to standing armies."
A militia, therefore, is essentially an armed citizenry, ready to defend itself (and in our case our Constitution) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The role of the "well regulated Militia" has, for the most part, been assigned to our National Guard by the government. But, by virtue of that government assignment and recognition, they no longer meet the technical definition of a "militia". Now that we're all on the same page, let us continue...

The militia was considered as "being necessary to the security of a free State". The individual State units of the National Guard could at least partially fill that role... IF THEY WERE IN THE UNITED STATES! But, even then, their numbers alone would be insufficient to successfully defend our country from an attack. With slightly less than 20,000 miles of combined coastline and north-south land boundaries, and approximately 400,000 combined Army and Air Guard personnel, that would be a dispersal of 20 per mile, or one Guardsman every 264 feet, with zero depth. (The Japanese chose not to invade the United States during WWII because they envisioned "there is a gun behind every blade of grass.")

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you are a native born, English-speaking American, you should have no difficulty understanding that phrase. It's really quite straightforward. We the People, have a God-given right to keep and bear arms so that we may maintain our other Constitutional rights and freedoms. The government cannot and does not give rights - the government can only grant permission. As human beings we are born with rights.

Who wishes to deny us the right defined by The Second? Most of the world - some from envy of that freedom, others from unfounded fear, and yet others who wish to see us subjugated as they are. The largest organized external attack on our Constitution comes from the United Nations. I invite you to watch this video that I borrowed from the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute (see link in left-hand column). It is enlightening...

The UN has been trying to negotiate an arms control treaty for decades, but past US administrations have never supported such flagrant attempts by the UN to interfere with our sovereignty or strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

However, the CURRENT administration has reversed the long standing position of the US and has publicly stated that it supports an arms control treaty.

Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty, the Senate would have to ratify it before it could become the law of the land. The Senate has the power to nullify it by refusing to ratify the treaty.

Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.

The Second protects the other 26 Amendments... and all the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE - AGAIN

Well, the lefties are at it again, and given the recent spate of mindless shootings I could have predicted as much. This is the "ammunition" they needed to launch another attack upon our Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms". It seems to me that a similar challenge was dismissed by "the Supremes" earlier this year, but... that was a pre- anti-gun Sotomayor challenge. Sonia Sotomayor is an Obama appointee, and she is every bit as far to the left as he and the rest of his cadre of liberal loonies. The court is scheduled to hear opening arguments in early March of 2010, but no decision is expected until late June or early July of 2010. EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED. The left has been fast-tracking our country's ruination since January 20th.


When will "We the People" tell this corrupt and incompetent administration that we have had enough? Keep in mind that without the 2nd Amendment all our other Constitutional guarantees are in jeopardy. The 2nd Amendment protects not only our right to keep and bear arms, but our entire Constitution!

Almost daily Obama moves us closer to the European model of liberal socialist government dependency that he so loves, and dependency in this case means control. It is so much easier to control an unarmed populus than it is to control those who have the means - and the motivation - to resist that control.

At last count, thirty-three states had re-emphasized their Constitutional sovereignty under the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (I hope you don't live in one of the other 17 gutless states). Those actions should give Obama a clue that the people are not happy with bigger and more intrusive government.

As for me... I'm doing what I feel is necessary to cope with the potential events of the foreseeable future. Perhaps you should do the same... everybody should have a contingency plan.

Obama Revives Talk of U.N. Gun Control - All Our Rights Are In Danger!

As you enter the U.N. Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel. This should give you an idea of how the U.N. views our 2nd Amendment Right.The United Nations is, as the name implies, a concentration of voting representatives of 192 nations of the world, and two non-voting "Observer States" - the Mission of the Holy See (Vatican City) and the Mission of Palestine (Terrorist City). Those states are "united" only inasmuch as they attend meetings in a single place. Even as this blog is being composed there is some discussion among the sovereign nations of the European Union not just to have a President of the EU, but to convert the EU into a single government state with a single president! (Front runners for this position are rumored to include Belgium's center-right Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and French President Nicolas [get 'em while they're young] Sarkozy.)

As most of us are aware, the United Nations makeup is primarily left-wing nations, dictatorships, and "enforced governments" (voting permitted, but ballots ignored in favor of the incumbent). We are also aware that our Constitution is what makes the U.S. unique among world governments... it GUARANTEES us certain rights that most of the people of the world do not enjoy. Among those rights is the Constitutional right - and power - to replace a non-responsive government that has forgotten the its people ARE its power.

We are NOT Europe, nor do we wish to imitate Europe. We ARE the United States of America. We do not need the United Nations, "International Law", or the "International Court" to dictate how we will run our country. We do not need the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29 to supercede our Constitutional rights -

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Vaguely worded, legal mumbo-jumbo that can be interpreted in any fashion the dominant authority, which, in this case would be the United Nations (after Obama signs over ownership of We the People to the U.N.) desires. It's a "they win, we lose" situation, just waiting for an opportunity to manifest itself.

Obama's plan seems to be designed to destroy both our national and our individual economies, thereby making submission to a One World government more attractive to those who cannot see through the smoke, and are not misdirected by the mirrors. Our government has spent its way into a very large hole, which it made even deeper by borrowing money from our "good friends" in Communist China. Then Obama has more US currency printed and minted, thereby further devaluing it, and reducing our personal buying power. From March to September 2009, the dollar's value fell 14.9% against the Euro. How did this happen? The dollar is declining for the following reasons:

1. The U.S. debt has risen to over $12 trillion. Foreign investors are concerned that the U.S. will let the dollar decline so the relative value of its debt is less.
2. The large debt could force the U.S. to raise taxes to pay it off, which would slow economic growth.
3. As more countries join or trade with the EU, demand for the euro will increase.
4. Foreign investors may want to diversify their portfolios with more non-dollar denominated assets.
5. As the dollar continues its decline, investors will be less likely to hold assets in dollars as they wait for the decline to stop.

The government is fully aware that this path to destruction will not rest well with "We the People". And, much to the chagrin of that same government, it realizes that it cannot just rescind the 2nd Amendment without a firestorm of response. What's the politically correct, high-deniability, cowards way out? Be able to blame it on somebody else - like the United Nations - by way of "treaty"or "agreement". To me, that doesn't seem like a really feasible way to avoid that firestorm... does it to you? But then, I'm not a politician... I just "call it like I see it"- not how somebody else thinks it should be. If any of these things happen we need to...

GUN CONTROL!! GUN CONTROL!! STOP THOSE VIOLENT GUNS TODAY!

The most recent act of domestic terrorism has left the nation stunned. The calculated slaughter of 13 American soldiers by one of their own was, by all reports, not an unforeseeable incident. Army Major Nidal Hasan, had been repeatedly overheard making negative remarks about the USA and our commitment in the middle east, and espousing his Muslim faith at inappropriate times - like the time he was supposed to present a paper at a medical conference.

Major Hasan is a Muslim. As soon as his identity was revealed, his religion became the subject of a ferocious public debate: bloggers claimed the massacre cast doubt on the loyalty of all American Muslims, while commentators on the other side argued that even to consider the role of Hasan's faith was Islamophobic. To NOT consider his religious beliefs would be sheer stupidity! Islam is not a religion of peace, love and brotherhood. Looking back through the world's history, no religion has unwaveringly remained in that category. We have the Christians behind the Spanish Inquisition, the Jewish Zealots at Masada after being defeated at the rebellion against Rome, and the several conflicts between the Christians and Muslims known as The Crusades. All religions are man-made... and therefore they are just as flawed as the men who created those varying systems of belief. God did not create "religion". He was too busy creating the universe and all the things therein... so he left it up to mankind to devise the means by which they could learn to hate one another - even in the name of brotherly love.

Before I digress into a religious quagmire, let me return to my original train of thought, and the dual role Nidal Hasan's religion played. Given a choice between following military orders, and being put in a position where he may have been called upon to kill fellow Muslims, Nidal chose to take up arms against "the infidels" as the Q'uran requires. His religion required him to "convert the infidels or put them to the sword". At the same time his Islamic faith protected him from appropriate actions by the military when his performance, judgment and attitudes were viewed as being well outside the normal realm of acceptability - because his superiors didn't want to be seen as intolerant racists and/or Islamophobes.

Now the left-wing once again raises the hue and cry against gun ownership by individual citizens, as if the guns were alone in the murders of those 13 soldiers and the wounding of 30 others. Was there no operator aiming them and pulling the triggers repeatedly? Did these evil guns walk into that building under their own power and begin firing randomly into the room? How do we justify transferring the necessary human emotions of anger, fear, and hatred to these inanimate tools? And, short of prohibiting the private ownership of firearms, how do we insure that the crazies of the world do not have ready access to those firearms? For the moment, our ability to "keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that guarantee is the one that protects all the other rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

The elimination of that pesky old Second Amendment is something the left has been after for decades. Elimination, or at the very least the emasculation of the Second Amendment would certainly make it easy for a tyrannical socialist "progressive"/Marxist government to assume and retain control of the people, wouldn't it?

The recent spate of mindless, multiple shootings simply provides the Liberal Left ("liberal" about everything other than that which the Right values) with more "ammunition" for their agenda - an agenda with which most Americans are at odds. Our choices are to be apathetic and expect the situation to self-correct, or to become pro-active and demand that our elected "representatives" maintain the course that has kept our nation and its citizens free and prosperous for 233 years.

The Liberal Left is well-organized and overflowing with activists, while the Conservative Right is... conservative! Not only are most of us conservative in our values, but we are equally conservative in our behavior. We are The Silent Majority! What has our silence gained us? To remain silent is to remain unheard, and to be unheard is to be passed by unnoticed. The time for silence has long passed, but that passage has gone mainly unnoticed. If we do not make our voices heard now, we may well be silenced forever!

PROTECT OUR NATION BY DEMANDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT FOLLOW THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN - NOT AS SOME INCOMPETENT "CZAR" OR ACTIVIST JUDGE INTERPRETS IT!

Dissent Not Permitted: The Assault on Our First Amendment Rights

A quick review of Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America reveals the intent of our Nation's founders was very straightforward:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphases added for clarification)

Now, let's play the Bill Clinton game... "it depends on what abridge means". Here we go:

abridge

Pronunciation:

\ə-ˈbrij\

Function:

transitive verb

Inflected Form(s):

abridged; abridg·ing

Etymology:

Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at

Date:

14th century

1 archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish 2: to shorten abridges distance>3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

synonyms see shorten

Now that we all know the human definition of "abridged" (as opposed to the expectedly complex and mind-boggling legalese definition) we can proceed.

The abridging of our "freedom of speech" began ever-so-innocently with what was humorously referred to as "political correctness", or PC. To be politically correct meant that certain long established phrases were now considered insensitive, and we could no longer use honest, straightforward language to express our thoughts. We could no longer "call a spade a spade", as it was now more PC to call it a manually operated entrenchment device. While we're on that subject, let's look at the etymology, or origins, of that particular phrase - to "call a spade a spade":

spade (1)

"tool for digging," O.E. spadu, from P.Gmc. *spadon (cf. O.Fris. spada, M.Du. spade, O.S. spado, M.L.G. spade, Ger. Spaten), from PIE *spe- "long, flat piece of wood" (cf. Gk. spathe "wooden blade, paddle," O.E. spon "chip of wood, splinter," O.N. spann "shingle, chip"). To call a spade a spade "use blunt language" (1542) translates a Gk. proverb (known to the Romans)

It means to use blunt language - a definition that was established over 450 years ago! The racially charged, derogatory use of the word didn't come about until 1928, and today, most people still understand the phrase to mean use blunt language. As laughable as we may find the implied necessity to use idiotic euphemisms to express honest thoughts, it was the beginning of the assault on free speech. However, that assault is only in effect toward those who disagree with positions of the radical left-wing liberals.

Speaking of radical left-wing liberals... Supreme Court Justice Souter has announced his plans to retire from "The Bench", and B. Hussein Obama is considering about eight frothing-at-the-mouth radical lefties as Souter's replacement. Among these are Hillary Clinton (no additional comment necessary), four actual sitting judges at various levels of the judiciary, and the lesser-known Cass Sunstein. Sunstein's claim to fame is that he's an "old friend" of Obama's, and a notoriously left-wing but "brilliant constitutional law professor".

There's an old saying, "Those who can, do - those who can't, teach." This brilliant constitutional law professor is considered "brilliant" primarily because he's far left politically, and has an unusual view of the First and Second Amendments. Sunstein has been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership, a ban on hunting, animal rights and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet! According to Sunstein "the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing." Excuse me, but where is it written that the Internet is supposed to be "democratic"? You can link all the opposing opinion sites "until the cows come home", that doesn't mean anybody would click on them... or would that be mandatory surfing behavior also? The word is FREEDOM! Freedom of speech, of expression, of thought, and of action (within the law) even if others believe the manner in which you choose to exercise those freedoms to be insensitive, or otherwise wrong (i.e. - not PC). That's what "freedom" IS - the right of the individual to CHOOSE!

Here's another example of Sunstein's brilliant wisdom - "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name." Apparently he has redefined the word "democratic" to exclude any and all thought outside the left-wing box. If it weren't FOR those freedom's he so cavalierly discredits, there would be NO democratic process in our REPUBLIC!

Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views. Here are a few more examples of Sunstein's "brilliance":

• In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
  
  
• In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."
  
  
• In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"
  
  
• In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."

The radical left has long desired to silence those with opposing viewpoints. They present themselves as "the tolerant ones", but they only tolerate that with which they agree! What exactly have they attacked? Anything in conflict with their world view. Religion, via "hate speech" legislation, which equates the quoting of the Scriptural detestation of homosexuality as "hate speech" - which is a matter they should take up with God instead of the Legislature. They attack "freedom of the press" when that freedom is extended to include all media reportage. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or any media reflecting the expression of conservative thoughts, principals, or ideals. They attack freedom of expression by attempting to marginalize activities such as the recent nationwide Tax Day Tea Party - with well over one million participants - as "Republican backed", and "radical extremists that bear close watching", and "the uneducated masses blindly serving the interests of big money". These are descriptive phrases denoting their FEAR! The left FEARS opposition, simply because their emotional arguments have no basis in a realistic world view, and are too weak to withstand intelligent, objective scrutiny.

I still support freedom of the press, regardless of the fact that 95% of the media are biased toward the left. The news is no longer reported. It's manufactured, or otherwise modified, by the left-wing publishers who require their "reporters" to insure that any story with political implications has the proper "I own this company, and you work for me" slant. I hope (against hope) that someday they will see the error of their ways, but it is not likely.

The thirst for power is the great motivator. Gaining personal power through the use of increasingly powerful connections. Personal, political and business connections that are untiringly networked toward the goal of high degrees of personal influence within a society. That "society" can be anything from a small commune to an international society - the level at which the leaderships of nations ostensibly operate.

The media has power over what information, and in which manner, it is delivered to the people. The leaderships of churches, synagogues, and mosques have power over influencing how people think about questions of morality, and their beliefs in obedience to whatever deity that particular entity supports. The public school boards have power over the primary and secondary "education" (read: social indoctrination) of the vast majority our children. Power feeds their greed. Yes, greed is a strong word, but it exists in most of us. Almost all people, of almost all modern societies, are acquisition oriented. For many, it is simply the acquisition of the basic necessities for sustaining life. For others it is how they gain the respect - and in some cases the adulation - of their peers, and the confused fear of those significantly "beneath them" in the social hierarchy. And for still others, power is reflected in big homes, fancy cars, expensive designer clothing, television appearances, magazine interviews - anything which that person feels is an outward sign of significant success, and may attract other like-minded people to their side, is power.

If we sit silently as our Constitution is marginalized, minimized, ignored and obstructed, we deserve whatever the outcome may be... and it won't be the least bit enjoyable!

There is a remote chance that I could be wrong about this ... any thoughts?