Monthly Archives: October 2012

Happy Halloween

Standard

Happy Halloween

It’s Halloween…lets talk about things that go bump in the night and what you need to combat them.

First, zombies.

Either through voodoo, curses, drugs or virus, the zombie is a contagious, relentless being of insatiable hunger. Be it your brains or flesh they want to eat you and even if they are classic slow shuffling Romero zombies and not the updated “all zombies move like spider man and know kung fu”, they will overwhelm you with numbers and tireless forward progression.

How to disable a zombie?  Easy enough, brain trauma.  Everything else on a zombie; organs, blood, eyes, etc are unnecessary for them to move and attack, but if you produce enough trauma to the brain they will cease to function.

How do you go about doing that?  First and foremost a firearm is a good choice.  They can fire from a distance and limit the potential for exposure of zombie juices on you which could infect you.  Also, depending on the rate of decay of a certain zombie, a .22 round can do the damage required.  They are light, small and can be kept in greater number than a larger round.

Zombies pose a unique problem.  Their very nature of infectiousness leads to an apocalyptic world.  Which also means that bullets and raw materials for reloaders will become harder and harder to come by.  With that being said, a few hand to hand combat tools will be a good idea.  These can be easily made from a sharpened pipe, or any metal that can be worked at a point.  Also, if you have a sword or ax or some other edged weapon you will be able to neutralize a zombie at close range.  With a sword I recommend a coup de grace and decapitate them (WARNING: THE HEAD WILL STILL BE ACTIVE AND DANGEROUS) and with the ax or hatched a good cleave to the skull should do the trick.  Be wary of having your hatchet becoming stuck in the skull.

If those options are unavailable a blunt heavy object like a baseball bat will suffice.  Yet be on your guard since this tactic will result in more gore and back splash of goo may come dangerously close to exposed skin or eyes running the risk of contamination.  Try to keep to aluminum bats as they are easier to clean and wood will soak up zombie goo and run further risk of contamination.

Despite what is often portrayed on television and in the movies, a bow and arrow is not a good weapon against zombies mainly because the skill needed to utilize the weapon effectively is uncommon.  Not only would you have to shoot them in the head but most likely through the eye at a distance.  So unless you are Robin Hood you might be out of luck.  Perhaps with a crossbow at closer range the bolt would be more able to do what is required.

Vampires

A legend that some trace back to Cain, and others to Judas Iscariot, vampires are long lived, blood drinking, beings with enhanced physical powers.  We’ll stick with the solid physical form ones for this example and not delve into ones that turn into bats or mist etc.

Vampires do occasionally like to turn people into vampires but it is not as prevalent as zombie contamination nor does it become automatic as vampire bites do not automatically turn one into a vampire.  With that being said, Vampires do look to non vampires as food and as such seek to exsanguinate their victims.

How to vanquish a vamp?  Unlike zombies there are a few different ways to dispatch a vampire.  First, the most effective way to kill a vampire is to stab them through the heart with a wooden stake.  Most accept that any wood will do, though those who think that vamps are cursed offspring of Cain find that wood from an Apple tree is necessary  while those who believe that Judas was the first vampire think that Aspen wood will do the trick.  The latter also would explain why some believe that vampires are allergic to silver and can be hurt by it.

But before we get to that, Vampires are probably the only monster in which a crossbow or bow and arrow would be a reasonable choice.  Aiming for the chest is a bit easier than an eye socket and if you hit the target, their black monstrous heart, the shaft of the arrow (which would need to be wooden) will eliminate your vampire issue.

So you turn into a big hairy monster every so often, who doesn’t want to run free every now and again? the

As with silver, there are several last resort ways of trying to kill a vampire.  I say last resort because they are either conflicting from the tale to tale or are in and of themselves very difficult to administer.

A bottle of holy water can be used like a hand grenade to incapacitate while you stab them through the heart.

Vampires apparently don’t like garlic…but then again…whats that gonna do for ya?

Burning a vampire to ashes will most likely do the trick but unless they are taking a bath in kerosene, what are the chances they are going to give you the time to douse them in something flammable?

Finally, decapitation has been said to work.  The only problem is, the vampire is stronger, faster and all around physically superior to regular people.  How you expect to go all Highlander on them is beyond me.

Werewolves

Lycanthropy is a little less contagious than zombies but the added perks make it not the worst thing in the world.  So you turn into a big hairy monster every so often, who doesn’t want to run free every now and again?Being bit or scratched by a werewolf may turn you into one.  Sometimes that’s all it takes, other times it has to be done at a certain time.

But, like there are bad people in the world, so to would one expect to find bad werewolves who want to eat you whole.  Werewolves have heightened animal senses and as such, getting the drop on one is notoriously difficult.  Chances are they know where you are before you know where they are.

How to vanquish a werewolf?  Silver and distance. For some reason, werewolves have a severe allergy to silver and as such will die if you can get some silver into them.  But trying to stab a werewolf with silver knife or sword will be difficult since they are so much stronger and animalistic.  That is why one should stick with a gun.

Silver is currently trading at $32 an ounce.  Since the amount of silver needed relates to the effectiveness a .45 bullet would be ideal for stopping power.  Since 1 ounce equates to approx. 28 grams and a .45 bullet is approx 15 grams you are looking at about $16 a bullet.  Not cheap to load up a magazine full of silver bullets.  I feel that the Lone Ranger benefited from low prices of sliver.

Outside of that there really aren’t that many options.  Decapitation runs the same risk here that it does with vampires and outside of silver the only thing that really effects werewolves is wolfsbane but that probably has the same efficacy of garlic to vampires.  Maybe keep some on hand but if your depending on it…good luck.

Frankenstein Monster Types

Genetically or scientifically created monsters that for some reason hate the world and want to kill everything in it.  They may be made from dug up grave pieces, genetically engineered experiments or a hodgepodge cyborg type thing with bolts sticking out of its neck.

How to stop non-mystically, non infectious, non zombie killing machines?

OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER.

A high amount of lead being sent down range at your monster will pretty much do it.  Maybe they are afraid of fire.  Let them fear the continuous spew of it from your arsenal of firearms.

Gun Control Zealots

The most insidious of all monsters.  These brainless illogical beasts function without much cognitive capacity, much like zombies, though in more of a hive mentality.  The queen usually being some rich benefactor (occasionally Mayor of New York City) who tells his drones to continue to attack and attack.

GCZ’s are like vampires and they want to suck the lifeblood out of America and its Constitution.

Like werewolves, they have heightened senses in regards to sniffing out tragedies for them to exploit, yet since they have the cognitive capacity of zombies they make illogical deductions and reasonings.

And like Frankenstein’s monster the best way to defeat them is to use a firepower they have absolutely no defense against…logic.

The GCZ hates logic and while they may thrash around initially, overwhelming logic will silence them and eventually they will combust and be no more.

 

So, with all that being said…HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!

Advertisements

Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Standard

Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Last week in Juneau Alaska, about 200 sixth graders headed to the firing range to learn about firearms.  Floyd Dryden Middle school runs a program that teaches the kids how to safely handle and shoot rifles, as well as hunting ethics, conservation and management, navigation and other outdoor skills.

But don’t misunderstand, just as the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, neither is this program.  Program Director Ken Coate stresses:

“We aren’t here to create little hunters. We’re here to teach firearm safety, firearm handling, how to treat a firearm with respect, how to keep a kid from getting in trouble with a firearm — and everything else is a side benefit.”

A side benefit.  Meaning that the most important thing and the primary purpose of this program is to instill respect for and knowledge of firearms.  I have always been a proponent of educational programs such as this so that children realize that guns in real life hold very little in common with the dramatized fiction of the movies.

With this knowledge a couple of things happen.  First, the seriousness of the matter sinks in so children understand that guns are not toys.  Secondly, the mystery around guns is removed so kids won’t be as tempted to seek them out in a home that has one.  Thirdly, if you acclimate a child in their youth with guns there is less of a likelihood that they will grow up with that irrational fear and hatred that spawns gun control zealots.

To the earlier points, the Principal of Floyd Dryden, Tom Milliron, wrote a letter to the parents of the children before the program saying:

“Students who live in homes without firearms are often exposed to firearms in their friends’ homes. They need to understand safe and appropriate behavior in these situations.”

Now, for any parent who vehemently objects, their child does not have to participate, but my question is, why would you want to hurt your child?  This is a fantastic program which teaches your child invaluable knowledge and may actually save their life.  Are anti gun zealots so conceited that they would sacrifice their children in order to maintain their own misguided self righteousness?

I don’t think any of the Alaskan parents actually objected to the program.  The previous paragraph was directed more to the other places in this country where they not only lack this program but hell would literally have to freeze over before it was allowed in their schools.  I’m thinking firstly of New York City and other North Eastern dens of gun bias.  His Mayor-ness Bloomberg’s brain would most likely explode if someone would suggest such a program in his fiefdom.  When you have as much hate in your heart as Mayor Bloomberg does then little things like sacrificing children to promote your own agenda is of little consequence.

This is the kind of program that should be everywhere in America.  Instead of having a tragedy befall a family because a kid thinks a gun is a toy or doesn’t have the proper respect for a firearm, why don’t we educate them so we avoid a tragedy in the first place?

Old enough to vote, old enough to fight…but forget about protecting yourself

Standard

Old enough to vote, old enough to fight…but forget about protecting yourself

That is the verdict that was rendered by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals last week.  The verdict states that the Federal Government can continue to ban the sale of handguns to 18-20 year olds.  A loophole does exist stating that a parent can gift such a weapon to their children.  And in open carry states that do not require a permit or constitutional carry states, that 18-20 year old can carry said weapon.

Let’s put aside that little loophole and I say loophole in the best possible way since I feel this ruling is completely unconstitutional.

Things you can do before you are 21:

  • You can legally drive a 2 ton vehicle that can go over 100 miles per hour that statistically kills more people than firearms by a rate of 2 to 1.
  • You can legally vote.  A vote which may elect politicians who send this country off to war, into a depression, who invalidate rights, who raise taxes and cripples the middle class.
  • You can go off to war, where the Government is only too happy to put a gun in your hand to go and kill at their discretion.

But when you come home…well buddy, thanks for protecting the Country but don’t you even think about a handgun to protect yourself.

In it’s ruling the Court said that since the aforementioned loophole exists they do not have to apply “strict scrutiny” in regards to the matter and that a “eh, this works” ruling would suffice (note that “eh, this works” ruling is a rougher personal translation of “rational review”).

So instead of defending the enumerable rights of those who are otherwise given the rights of a citzen, the court decides to regurgitate the gun controls line that 18-20 year olds are too young, immature and prone to violence to purchase firearms.

The presiding judge, Edward Prado wrote in regards to the 1968 prohibition:

“Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns”.

I find it ironic that in 1968 things were really heating up in Vietnam and Congress didn’t have a problem given thousands upon thousands of 18-20 year olds weapons in order to go a killin’ in the foreign land.

Do I think 18-20 year olds always make the best decisions?  No.  But that doesn’t matter.

Either they are citizens or they’re not.  Congress and the courts shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which Constitutional right applies to whom and at what time.

What Obama says and what the Founding Fathers meant

Standard

What Obama says and what the Founding Fathers meant

In a historical, he said they said moment, let us take a look at how Obama interprets the Second Amendment as compared to how the Founding Fathers meant it when it was written.

Firstly, President Obama claims to believe in the Second Amendment.  That’s all well and good, but if he doesn’t understand the Second Amendment then what good is his belief in it.  Let’s take a look at what his belief holds if we take him at his word:

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.” – Obama 7/25/12

Hunting and sport.  That is what Obama believes the Second Amendment is about.  Now let’s take a look at what the Founding Fathers, the ones who fought to free themselves from the tyranny of a King, the ones who enumerated our rights in the Bill of Rights, who set up our Government to be a Representational Republic and who intrinsically gave the people the power to decide how they will be governed.

We’ll start with the guy who is considered the Father of the Bill of Rights.  Let’s see what George Mason has to say on the issue:

“To disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”   -George Mason

I do not believe the the Father of the Bill of Rights was about deer rising up and enslaving the citizenry.  Mason wasn’t the only one.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”                         -Richard Henry Lee

“No free man shall ever be denied the use of Arms” – Thomas Jefferson

I don’t think Lee meant that we had to preserve our liberty from wildlife.  And since not every one was a hunter so if it only applied to hunters why wouldn’t he say “no hunter shall…”.

I know a lot of people want to try and use the wording of the Second Amendment to deny the individual the right to keep and bear arms so what does the Father of American Scholarship and Education have to say on the matter.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”    -Noah Webster

That pretty much encapsulates the entirety of what the Second Amendment means and as it was written to mean.  Webster wrote the above passage while examining the leading principles of a federal constitution back in 1787.  This wasn’t an interpretation of what the Amendment meant, it was a basis of which the Amendment would be written a year or so later.

So, the Second Amendment wasn’t written with hunting in mind but rather the defense of liberty against a tyrannical government.  One might think that President Obama just didn’t expand his definition well enough to include that.  One might think that…until the President starts talking like this:

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” -Obama

He uttered this phrase right after he finished with his first definition of the Second Amendment as pertaining to hunting.  He also tried to paint the argument that such weapons are only used by criminals or soldiers.  But the people should have the same access to such weapons legally.  Why should they?  Because that is who makes up a militia.  And not some modern nonsense about the National Guard but the true and timeless definition that a citizen has the right to protect their life and defend their liberty.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves”                  -Richard Henry Lee

Properly formed you ask?  All that means is that the group is not a roving mob but rather armed with purpose to defend liberty.  That is the truest sense of the term militia.  It doesn’t need government regulation or control because as it stands, it is the government that the militia will most likely need to defend themselves from.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton

Why is that the best we can hope for?  Because it is by the use of arms that freedom and liberty can ever exist.  Not necessarily by using them, but by simply having them to deter those who would usurp our liberties.

But of course, Obama at best thinks it only means hunting.  And if we continue to take him at his word then we must also accept that he believes in disarming the populace from any means of defense against a tyrannical despot.

“What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” -Obama 10/16/12

The only violence that could possibly reduce is the violence done in defense of liberty against tyranny.  Because, as any gardener of liberty and freedom knows:

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

While Webster phrases the reasons, Jefferson states the action.

That is the reason of the Second Amendment, and that is why Obama is so wrong on it.

Where few stood against many

Standard

Where few stood against many

For those of you who may not realize, today (Oct. 25th) is St. Crispin and Crispinian Day.  Why am I writing about it for a gun blog? Because this day oddly enough has a very interesting history of instances where few stood against many.

Often, gun control zealots like to dismiss the most important reason behind the Second Amendment, stating that A) the government would never become tyrannical and B) even if they did civilians wouldn’t be able to up against the US Military.  It goes to show the need for the Second Amendment to be applied to the heretofore demonized weapons like automatic guns and semi automatic rifles.

President Obama claims that weapons like the AK 47 belong in the hands of soldiers not criminals.  That they belong on the battlefield and not on the streets.

Of course with his desire for a so called “assault” weapons ban that would make law abiding citizens who have those guns criminals ipso facto.

But would the access to these weapons make a difference against the might of the US Military being used by a despotic and tyrannical government?  It has been said that at most 3 percent of colonists were roused to fight the Kings army, the most powerful in the world at the time.  If that 3% holds true today, then so long as we are not disarmed tyranny shall not rule openly in these United States.

But back to St. Crispin Crispinian Day. Below are two accounts of two battles that happened on this day.  Both had instances of a few charging against many.  The first were equally armed…the second, not so much.

The first occurred in 1415 at the Battle of Agincourt and was immortalized in Shakespeare’s play “Henry V”.  Henry and his band of English had landed in France to deal with the disputed area of Normandy and Aquitaine.  The French, of course, didn’t care for this to much and the final climax of the campaign came at Agincourt.

Henry had a scant 6500 men with him.  Only 1500 of which would be carrying a sword while the rest were long bowmen.  The French on the other hand had upwards of 30,000 men, 10,000 of which were Knights and other heavily armored men at arms.  1200 of which were mounted upon horses.  The rest a mix of bowmen, crossbowmen and foot soldiers.

Few stood against many and even though they were outnumbered and had less armor and weapons the English stood their ground and won the day.  This was done because even if though they had more, the French were fighting with swords and the English were fighting with swords.  The French had bows and arrows and the English had bows and arrows.  If the French had disarmed the English before the battle and said they could fight with knives and throw stones at the French the battle would have turned out much differently.

All told, the English lost 112 lives that day while the estimate of French losses number 7,000 to 10,000.

Why was this possible?  Because when placed on even footing, those with the will to fight and win can carry the day.  Just as those American’s who are willing to fight against tyranny can win against a military whose heart may not be in to the subjugation of its own.

Now lets take a look at the other immortalized battle on this day.  This one occurred in 1854 at the battle of Balaclava between the English and the Russians.  You may know of it as the “Charge of the Light Brigade”.  Here, we see what happens when there is a disproportionate balance of weaponry between two opposing forces.

On one hand you have the Light Brigade.  They are a cavalry unit who received miscommunicated orders to attack.  They were supposed to be harrying a retreating aspect of the Russian forces to which their light arms would be an asset, but due to the fog of war the order came to attack the main force of entrenched heavily armed Russians with overwhelming cannonades.

The English attacked and made a good show of it actually reaching the Russian lines, but after the withering and crushing bombardment, by the times they reached the line they had to retreat as they had lost more than half their number.

If the English were better equipped with weapons equal to the Russians then their fates may have been different as well.

 

All in all, despite what lip service the President gives to the Second Amendment, even if he means it, he only extends to the most meaningless aspect of the Right itself.

Obama’s stated view of the Second Amendment:

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation—that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

It’s no wonder why the President is seeking to ban firearms and what he deems to be “assault” weapons.  He thinks that if you don’t hunt with it, then you shouldn’t have it.

Such is not the case.  Even if it is only a few percent of us, the armed people remain a free people and this day has proven both that with equal arms few can stand against many as well as that an under-armed force can get obliterated regardless of their bravery or willingness to die for their cause.

I cannot reiterate enough how important it is that the Second Amendment is never confused or misconstrued to be made into a right that protects hunting.  It is insulting to the Patriots who have died to protect the right against tyranny.  They did not die to protect deer season.

And even if only a few of us are willing to fight for liberty, take heart…”one man with courage is a majority” -Thomas Jefferson.

On that thought Happy Crispin Crispinian Day.  Below is the link to Henry V’s St. Crispin’s Day Speech.

http://artofmanliness.com/2008/09/13/manvotional-2-we-few-we-happy-few-we-band-of-brothers/

 

This is what happens when politicians only hear from gun fearing snivelers

Standard

This is what happens when politicians only hear from gun fearing snivelers

Since the state of Kansas does not have preemption with regards to firearm laws, any town or city can pass their own infringements on the Second Amendment leaving the state a nightmare to try and traverse.

Recently though, the Attorney General of Kansas,  wrote an opinion stating: ““A city may not completely prohibit the open carry of a loaded firearm on one’s person.”

That served as a wake up call to places like Wichita and Overland Park to hop on the trolley and retract their unconstitutional ban on open carrying.  Overland Park just recently enacted the legalization of open carrying a few weeks ago.
Even though the streets did not run red with blood and there WERE NOT daily shoot outs like the fictionalized old west, don’t tell that to gun haters.  They have been out in full force to decry the attack on their sensibilities in seeing a law abiding citizen with a pistol on their hip.
To quote Jim Hix, City Council Member, directly, “The public has not been pleased.”
I strongly doubt “the public” has not been pleased but rather a group of whiny gun hating servile government sycophants have been vocal about their irrational fear.  As such, since they are the only voice being heard the city council of Overland Park is now reconsidering the Open Carrying law that they passed some few scant weeks ago.
What do they want to change?  They want to force open carriers to pay the state in order to practice their 2nd Amendment rights, ie get a concealed weapons permit in order to open carry.
What the city council wimps don’t realize is that those infringements won’t placate the few people who are pedaling their irrationality.  Just listen to some of the “concerns” these gun haters have:

Laveriss Steadham of Overland Park thinks the city made a mistake to allow open carry of weapons in the first place and wishes that residents had been given a chance to vote on the idea.

“I would love to see some restrictions,” she said of the proposed changes.

She says she wants restrictions, but what does that mean?  It means she wants guns to go away because the only way to restrict open carry to remove the main issue that gun haters have with open carry is to outlaw open carry.

Another resident of the city, Florence Erickson, said the open carry law, with or without the proposed restrictions, is “ludicrous” in the way it could make guns more commonplace. She and her husband, Gary Erickson, worry older people carrying weapons may have “a mental lapse” or that they may fall victims to young people wanting to steal a weapon.

The keeping and bearing of arms is “ludicrous” to Mrs. Erickson.  Not only does she allow her gun hating side to beam through she backs it up with basic gun control fear mongering and ageist bigotry saying that old people  are helpless and frail and fall victim to young criminals.

Well, to that I say this and this and this. (links to old people being awesome)

Then you have Paul Lyons who initially voted against the change and wanted to keep the ban on open carry in place.  He is of the ilk that states that someones feelings trump another’s constitutional rights:

“People who would see that would be concerned and might be somewhat intimidated by a person doing that,”

I know old Jewish people in Squirrel Hill Pennsylvania that are intimidated by black people.  Should we ban black people from that part of Pittsburgh?  Your feelings are your own and you have a right to them, but they do not trump my Constitutionally enumerated rights and for the council to even consider the revocation of a law they just passed because of baseless and irrational fear of ninnies is just pathetic.

Lyons would go on to say that there’s no reason for a person to need to openly carry in Overland Park.  I guess the Constitution doesn’t hold much pull with Councilman Lyons.

Lyons is quoted as saying this though, since the Government trumps the Constitution and knows better:

“It certainly is not for self-protection because if they wanted it for protection, they would have the option of obtaining a concealed permit.”

So, instead of an inalienable right that we are born with, Councilman Lyons believes that the Second Amendment is not a right but rather a privilege that can be given or rejected at the governments whim.

This is what happens when there is a sound vacuum and only one voice is being heard.  Weak willed politicians go with whatever the way the wind blows.

If you live in Kansas, especially if you live in Wichita or Overland Park, I suggest that you contact your local government and decry the outrage at their consideration of infringing on your right to keep and bear arms openly.  Overland Park will move on the matter next month so you do not have much time.

 

Here is the contact list for every city council member of Overland Park:  Contact info Overland Park

Here is the feedback form for the Wichita City Council:  City Council Feedback Form

Let your voices be heard

Did Obama just admit that machine guns should be legal for citizens?

Standard

Did Obama just admit that machine guns should be legal for citizens?

Of course he won’t admit it, but if you follow the logic of his argument at the debate last night (though I doubt he will), technology has evolved and as such, so has the weaponry.

His exact quote in rebuttal to Romney’s claim that we have less ships in the navy now than in 1917:

 “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. … We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

So, seeing how technology has changed for the military it would only be logical that the free citizens of this country have their Second Amendment rights grow and evolve accordingly.  Therefore, we can set aside the silly musket argument that the gun control zealots like to talk about.

We are left with the only logical conclusion, using the President’s own argument, that the free people of this country’s right to keep and bear arms has evolved as well past muskets to not only semi automatic rifles but also to fully automatic machine guns.

And why would we need that?  It sure as shootin doesn’t have anything to do with hunting i’ll tell you that.  It goes to the fundamental law of nature that existed even before the right was enumerated in the Constitution.  The American settlers understood that the right to keep and bear arms was important for these purposes:

  • deterring tyrannical government;
  • repelling invasion;
  • suppressing insurrection;
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
  • participating in law enforcement;
  • enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Notice how hunting is not on that list.  These are the real reasons why the framers of the Constitution enumerated our right to keep and bear arms.

A quote has been attributed to Admiral Yamamoto of Japan during the WWII in regards to the feasibility of invading the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Even if it is misattributed to the Admiral the sentiment is no less true.  Gun owners number more than 80 million in this country and if allowed to fully exercise their God given rights, would be able to fully repel invasion and more importantly deter tyrannical governments.

For so long I have heard the argument by the gun control zealots that the Founding Fathers couldn’t imagine the type of firepower available in the future and as such the people should be limited to muskets and single shot pistols.

But as President Obama said, things have evolved and changed and the Founding Fathers envisioned that while the Right wouldn’t change, the manner in which it is exercised would.

The Founding Fathers distrusted government in general.  Even the one that they created and as such enumerated the Second Amendment as a safe guard against tyranny.  If the times change and the military is allowed to evolve, then to deny the expansion of the firearms available to free citizens of America would completely undermine and invalidate the Second Amendment and what it was intended to protect.

Of course, for the gun control tyrants, that’s kind of the point.

And for those of you with short memories, machine guns were once more readily available to the general public and not that long ago.  Before the Hughes Amendment in 1986 (which passed by the house under questionable means) it was perfectly legal to purchase an automatic weapon and streets were not running red with blood.

But I digress.  The fact remains that Obama would not only keep automatic rifles manufactured after 1986 illegal but has publicly stated he wants to reinstate the ban semi-automatic rifles that are the most popular firearms in America.  The hypocrisy of gun control tyrants in power is nothing new but always stomach turning.  Obama is more than happy to let the military evolve while the people are gelded in order to keep a dichotomy of power shifted firmly in the governments advantage.

This is the reason the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the clearest language of the day: Shall Not Be Infringed.

The whole of the populace should be able to have the ability to counter the tyranny of the government.  But if the former is limited to muskets and the latter allowed the technology of the day the ability is stripped and freedom dies.