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!).

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?

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.

Guns, Guts and ... OH MY GOD! He got elected!

Well, the election is over, and so are many of the things I had come to love as a cultural traditionalist. This is not a 'wait and see' condition, it is a given if NObama runs true to his demonstrated character. There will be a left-wing push for a Constitutional Amendment to - or revocation of - the Second Amendment, in spite of the Supreme Court's recent ruling validating the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

The reaction to this possibility has been astounding! In preparation for the expected left-wing modification/elimination of our rights, gun sales have skyrocketed, applications for Concealed Firearms Permits have doubled in some areas of the country, and the availability of ammunition has become sparse in many areas across the country.

Personally, I purchased an extra 200 rounds of 5.56mm ammuntion today, and ordered three 30-round magazines for my Mini-14. This brings me up to 500 rounds and 8 magazines. Then there's my 500 rounds of .45acp, and 10 magazines, and the additional 750 rounds of 9mm, and 8 magazines - altogether about ½ of what I will eventually have on hand. Plus there's about 600 rounds of .22 long rifle ammunition. Oh - and I almost forgot! I also have 150 rounds of 12ga shotgun shells, mixed 00-buckshot and slugs. I'll need to increase that level to 300.

And now, some of you are surely wondering, "What in the hell is this guy going to do with all that ammunition?" Nothing spectacular. I will - undoubtedly - shoot some of it in the near future:
a. to insure that my guns are functioning properly, and
b. to insure that I can consistently hit whatever I may have to aim at in the distant future.

I will neither create another Ruby Ridge, nor will I start my own 'branch' of the Branch Davidians. Homey don't play that. What Homey do play is the oath that he has taken several times during his life ... I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. There's more, but as I see it, the remainder doesn't apply to me, since I am no longer a member of our active duty military, or the National Guard or Reserves - but I am, and always have been, an American citizen. And this is one citizen who takes that oath seriously! Have you noticed that in countries where private gun ownership is severely restricted - or prohibited - that their people are seldom citizens ... but, rather, SUBJECTS?

I could be wrong ....................................but I'm NOT!