20 10 2015
It's a simple question. Do you support the Constitution of the United States or not?
Most folks who know me know I spent 20 years of my life in the U.S. Army supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I swore an oath to do so. I am retired (but can be recalled at any time) and do not consider my oath vacated. I am also 50% disabled. These were service-related disabilities. Disabilities I received while in service and doing what I could for our great nation and the Constitution.
I take extreme offense at those who slander me and call me a terrorist. Dan Gross of the Brady Anti-Gun Lobby Group called the NRA (National Rifle Association), to which I belong, a terrorist organization. I don't know where this anti-patriot coward who never served a day in his life gets off calling me a terrorist.
I also am astonished at the completely incoherent thought processes surrounding statements like "the Supreme Court of the US is wrong" in its interpretation that the second amendment to the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States protects an individuals' freedom to keep and bear arms. Who does it protect? The government? The Bill of Rights is all about individual protections. Yet liberal states are permitted to pass legislation prohibiting citizens to keep and bear arms. How is this possible? Have they seceded from the union?
The federal government needs to do something to reassert itself to these sessionist states that would deny its citizens their second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Anti-patriot cowards like Dan Gross need to be censured and sanctioned for calling true patriots terrorists. I worked in anti-terrorist units on anti-terrorist missions. I resent his remarks. He is lucky I do not possess the financial wherewithal to confront him in court. He owes me and a number of other US Military Veterans that belong to the NRA an apology.
Over 40 years ago, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I very firmly believe in our Constitution and its guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. I don't believe the oath I took upon entering the US Army terminated with my retirement. In fact, as I still receive a check from the US Army (for retirement), in my way of thinking the oath is as binding as the day I took it.
The Constitution as a whole, and as I see it, the spirit of our Consitution is to guarantee personal freedoms. The second Amendment to the Constitution, in a portion referred to as the "Bill of Rights", guarantees our right to keep and bear arms:
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.
Now I understand where the introductory rationale for this amendment can be confusing. We no longer have a militia. We have a standing army for the country, the individual states have their own National Guard. So is this amendment really applicable today?
Many anti-2d Amendment believers say this no longer applies, so people don't need to have weapons to protect the state. Our forefathers couldn't foresee many changes that have taken place. But historically, weapons have not been for protection of the state so much as personal protection.
Ah, but we have police to provide us protection. Or do we?
I would cite the various states and Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions regarding the police and individual protection:
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005, SCOTUS docket 04-278)
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee (1995)
Bowers v. DeVito (1982)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989)
Ford v. Town of Grafton (1998)
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)
Riss v. New York (1958)
Lynch v. NC Dept. of Justice (1989)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975)
So if the police do not have a legal obligation to protect individuals (according to the citations above), either the powers that be have determined we don't need, don't deserve, or will provide for our own, protection. Well, my children and my wife need to be protected from the more nefarious elements of our society. And they deserve it. I think most of you reading this will agree. Therefore it is up to us as individuals to protect ourselves and each other. Please feel free to correct me if you feel this is wrong, but bring a reasoned argument to the table. Anecdotal "evidence" and personal feelings are not welcome.
The first decision cited above has resulted in numerous state laws (many of which people do not understand at all), often referred to as Castle Doctrine. These laws vary wildly in their expectations and demands on their citizens. They are often referred to as one of either "Stand your ground" laws or "Retreat" laws depending on whether you are required to retreat until you can retreat no further before you can legally defend yourself, or if you can stand your ground and defend yourself wherever you are legally allowed to be (even outside your own property), and some include the protection of third persons on their behalf.
That is, in NJ, for example, until you have retreated to the furthest reaches of your house and cowered in a corner, you cannot protect yourself from someone who has broken into your house. And even then, in court, you will be required to show that you could not have gone even further (like digging a hole) to avoid acting in self defense. If your assailant dies, count on going to prison. In other words, why didn't you and your loved ones just die and get it over with?
A comparison of the third and fourth largest US cities:
Chicago, IL Houston, TX Population 2.7 million 2.15 million Median HH income $38,600 $37,000 % African-American 38.9% 24% % Hispanic 29.9% 44% % Asian 5.5% 6% % Non-Hispanic White 28.7% 26% Concealed Carry gun law NO YES # Gun stores 0 184 dedicated, 1500 other Homicides (2012) 1806 207 Homicides/100k 38.4 9.6
Granted, other factors could be taken into account. But the above is damning. I know for a fact most Houston breakins occur when the residence is unoccupied -- for good reason. The likelihood of confronting an armed homeowner is much higher in Houston and folks are legally permitted to stand their ground. No such fear in Chicago.
The crime rate in Sweden is one of the lowest in the world. In Sweden, military service is mandatory. At the end of their obligatory military service, they take their issued weapons home with them (they have to maintain them). With every house in Sweden armed with at least one weapon, any question why their crime rate is so low? Anti-second amendment advocates cannot explain this as their arguments are that citizens need to be disarmed for their own protection. Given that argument, Sweden should have the highest crime rate in the world, not the lowest. Every statistic I see contradicts the assertion that a disarmed populace is a safe populace.
Now, I do not see any reason why the average citizen would need automatic weapons, rocket launchers, or weapons of mass destruction. That would be taking things to an extreme. I don't need to wipe out the entire block to protect myself and my family. I prefer a more targeted approach. But to take away my ability to protect my family against an armed assailant. Not happening (so I won't be moving to the communist states of NY or NJ any time soon). Couldn't anyway, they won't let my guns in. And if Texas ever goes the way of NJ, many of us will just have to become peaceful criminals.
In NY, prosecutors for Nassua County are prohibited from owning weapons. These are people that prosecute dangerous criminals. But they are prohibited from protecting themselves in their homes from these same dangerous criminals who may come to their homes to seek revenge. I cannot believe anyone is that naive that they would permit themselves to be disarmed in the face of the very real possibility of violence directed against their person. But, sheeple will be sheeple. Unfortunately, I believe the high crime rate in some of these areas can be directly attributed to the fact that criminals know they are safe -- from both the police (who won't arrive for at least 20 minutes in many areas) and from their victims who are legally enjoined from protecting themselves. Talk about a criminal's paradise.
Hypocrasy knows no bounds, though. "Gun safety" advocates don't advocate gun safety, only disarming the public. They have fought against gun safety classes for those who do own guns. Brady law advocates also want all citizens disarmed. Forget the facts: Then Press Secretary James Brady was shot during an attempt on President Reagan's life. The shooter was a known, wanted criminal who could not legally own or possess a gun in any state. A thousand Brady laws and complete disarming of the citizenry could not have stopped this attempt. Brady laws have nothing to do with stopping crime. Only preventing those non-sheeple, law abiding citizens from defending themselves against violent criminal activity.
Amazing. Passionate arguments are often persuasive to ill-informed sheeple who have no clue about weapons. Even our lawmakers who refer to "clips" when they mean bullets, show a complete lack of understanding of anything even related to guns and should not be introducing legislation about something of which they know not.
Personally, I would ban cars. Cars cause more deaths in the US than guns.
And by the way, the very term "gun violence" makes no sense. No gun is violent. No car is violent. People are violent. I was once attacked by a woman with her car (probably because she had no gun). She deliberately tried to run me down -- I ended up holding onto the hood for dear life afraid if I fell off, the tires might crush my legs (or worse). I heard no outcry to ban cars. In fact, the woman wasn't even arrested for attempted murder. I would have preferred to be shot at.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to live in states without onerous gun laws where I can provide my loved ones the protection the police and state can't or won't. And the last time I looked, neither I nor any of my guns have ever shot anyone just because we could.
Now, everyone is probably wondering what the first paragraph of this text has to do with everything coming after. Well, as I said, I vowed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Anti-gun folks and their unreasoned arguments have been attempting to subvert the Consitution of the United States. Their agenda is, in my opinion, an attack on the very foundation of our country and should be stopped. All those favoring anti-gun laws are attempting to circumvent our freedoms. Those candidates that are anti-second amendment should not be supported or voted for. I encourage you to find out what your candidates platform is on gun legislation and those who support ammo bans and gun bans should be viewed for what they are: anti-patriotic. I served in the armed forces for 20 years. I am sickened to see what the sheeple of this country have allowed to happen. We didn't become great by being a nation of cowards, but we've been acting like cowards since 9/11. We have most definitely traded our freedoms for security. A sure road to a dictatorship. Just say no to gun control.