Quote of the Year

I have to say, this one is going to be hard to beat:

"Used to be gold, but now lead is the most expensive metal," said Donald Richards, 37, "And worth every penny."

In response to the year long ammunition shortage due to Gun Control fears of an Obama Administration. (Thankfully we have successfully stalled him on Health Care that he hasn't gotten around to gun legislation yet)

As of this posting, Gold was listed at $995/oz. or $14,510 per pound. Lead is priced at 96 cents per pound.

Lead, not truly "the most expensive metal", but we know what you mean... wink wink!

Run on Gun Stores in Wake of Obama Election

Gun Stores across the nation reported surging business yesterday, in the wake of the election of Obama. The sudden demand for certain models, mostly assault rifles, has resulted in a price jump - and many locations are indicating popular AR models being sold out and buyers purchasing on back-order. Sources below:

Colorado
South Carolina
Utah
TN and Texas

This surge, as indicated in whispers around the nation, is - in part - due to the increased tension of some internal conflict within the country. There is an sense of uncertainty, of speculation, and of fear of the unknown - and the private citizens are preparing for the worst.

The other part is, of course, that Obama has openly supported a permanent ban on Assault Rifles - claiming that they "belong on foreign battlefields and not the streets of America." He has openly supported regulations which would move the nation towards eliminating personal defense weapons, and even attacked hunting by supporting "Super Taxes" on ammunition - making it impossible to procure... the same mentality in "bankrupting Coal Companies" applies to bankrupting citizens who want ammunition for their weapons.

Be it either way, the citizenry is arming itself ahead of the unknown. Liberty is not dead yet!

Obama Supports a BAN on Shotguns, Rifles, and a TAX on Ammunition

The NRA is hitting Obama HARD on the second amendment, a hit that Obama is attempting to censor. GunBanObama.com is airing a video citing Obama's background when it comes to hunting, let alone self defense. The video and fact-check is as follows:

*Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

*Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Politico, 03/31/08.

*Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04

*Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

*Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05

*Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04

OBAMA is NOT the candidate for more personal freedom!

"Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history. That's the truth,” concluded Cox. “NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it."

Additional NRA videos:

Breaking News – 2nd Amendment Upheld by Supreme Court

The first ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the right for private citizens to own weapons was handed down today, marking a turning point in the NRA’s struggle. The question was always whether the amendment was intended to be defined as the State having rights to train a militia and keep arms on their behalf, or if the citizens armed are the militia, and their private use and knowledge of the weapons served to better the protection of the state and the self.

The ruling was 5-4, along “party” lines, that the amendment should be understood that it is the right of a private citizen to own a weapon, and that laws to that effect cannot infringe on their ownership or assembly status.

The NRA finally gets a win. Fox News suggests that the NRA will now bring suits against other large cities that have a ban on hand-guns as well. This is a great day for the personal responsibility and liberty of a free society and free man (or woman).

The opinion of the court reads, in part, {The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” }

It continues with a very well written opinion breaking apart the language, and how it is used throughout the rest of the document, in an attempt to fully define and interpret this Right accurately:

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” - a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural), implying a right of an individual, not the right of a plural state militia.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

There could not be a more historic event regarding personal freedoms from the government. The court, which I am often critical of, has made the correct decision today, fully understanding that there is a separation from what was being created to what was being agreed to… that the creation of this union was not intended to infringe on rights that free men already had in existence.

Let me state clearly, that through all the doom and gloom I hear about this country, moments like this are a shining beacon of hope… there is still hope in my heart that this country will remain a country of freedom and liberty.

Shall Not Be Infringed...

Thanks to the DC gun ban, and the lawsuit by a local DC police officer, the Supreme Court is hearing a case on Gun Rights for the first time in 70 years. A circuit court ruling 2-1 decided that the gun ban was unconstitutional, and that individuals had the right to own personal guns for self defense.

The issue, which is a staple of the conservative base, revolves around the intent of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United 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.

Fox News reports the two sides of the argument being brought before the court. The DC government ‘s first argument is that the amendment applies to the militia (i.e. National Guard and Army) to have guns. Secondly, DC claims that the amendment does not apply to the district, as it is a special federally controlled haven of the government (a strange argument for a government looking for equal representation in congress). Finally, the DC government claims that this is a reasonable ban used in protecting the DC citizens from violence (looks like it has worked! I can’t think of one person that equates DC with Crime!)

The opposition claims, of course, that the 2nd amendment is very specific about guaranteeing an individual the right to keep and bear arms, and that the DC ban is a “draconian infringement” of our rights.

Heller’s lawyers also present its Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison. They also quote lawyer John Adams during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.
In that trial Adams conceded that “here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense."

This is going to come down to the intent of the amendment. What did the founders intend by placing those 27 words into our constitution? What purpose could those words serve for future generations?

Let’s take a look at the words, and identify with the founders… what experiences had they lived that would move them to include such a statement?

Definition of MILITIA: The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service

The founders had just fought and won a war against the largest army and Navy in the world, with little more than farmers and family men with a want to be free. Had these men not owned their own hunting rifles, or been trained in how to use them, there would be no USA. The militia is a band of ordinary citizens versed in defense.

“A well-regulated militia” refers to the ability to call on the citizens of a country to stand in defense with little training in order to face foes the likes of the British regular army.

“being necessary to the security of a free state” – it is the people of a society which are it’s very defense. The security lies in the necessity of ability to defend… and without this ability, the freedoms so valiantly fought for will be succumbed.

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms” – the two most important words are in this clause: right, and people. “Right” indicates that the words of this amendment are equal to those rights endowed by our creator, as described in the Declaration of Independence, which states that “among which are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness”… of course the founders were bright enough to say “among which”, which meant that further rights were yet to be defined that were also Divinely Endowed. And the word “People” is equally important. They did not say that it is the right of the government to issue arms, rather the right of the people to keep their own arms outside of a government armory. These would be their personal arms, well known to the individual, and able to sue in times of necessary defense of their personal property… be it from a tyrannical government or in simple defense of their personal property.

“shall not be infringed” – the meaning of this line is self evident… it was stated very clearly and bluntly… “No Trespassing” on our afore mentioned rights.

So according to my most accurate interpretation of the amendment, it would read (in layman’s terms): For the protection of our God Given and Earned Rights, a trained and knowledgeable citizenry is necessary. There is no better way to ensure that the United States will always have a citizenry ready to defend than to ensure that the people are always armed and well versed in their personal firearms. This is a right that a government of, by, and for the people shall never take away.

The court is expected to have a ruling on this case by June. I expect that a court truly in understanding of the intent of the people who founded this country will vote unanimously against any bans on firearms by the government. Unfortunately we have a court full of very liberal activists, willing and waiting to strip the people of their Endowed rights. Luckily we have a slim conservative majority, so we can expect a 5-4 ruling in favor of freedom. And this is exactly why we must not allow Hillary or Obama to select our next judges… the very interpretation of our Liberty is at stake.

The Importance of Gun Ownership

When I mention the word TYRANNY, what does it make you think of? Perhaps you are reminded of the American Revolution, fighting against King George... or perhaps you think of our current involvement in Iraq, in which we are fighting the totalitarianism of islamofascism.

But what if I told you that our very own government is guilty of tyrant-esque behaviors?

Consider New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Law abiding gun-owners, lawfully carrying personal protection were subdued and had their fire arms unlawfully confiscated. That is right... if you choose to defend yourself, the government is guilty of taking away your endowed right of liberty.

And it is bound to happen nation wide unless we send a clear message to our elected representatives that gun ownership is not about hunting or sport, but about maintaining liberty!

Consider that the American Revolution could not have happened without an armed citizenry... In fact the Continental Army was made up of farmers using their own arms.

And consider that the founding documents were written with this very fact in mind, that a well armed citizenry is the only defense against tyranny, protecting our liberties, and defending ourselves against our own government!

And now consider the following two videos:





With conservatives who think like this, who needs liberals?

Implementing a nationwide gun ban, or gun confiscation is nothing less than a Casus belli for Revolution against a Tyrannical US Government. What is the last straw? This is... taking away my RIGHT to liberty... one of the three rights endowed by my Creator.

I hold the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution, because the Declaration of Independence establishes the rule of law as the continuation of our rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness... The Constitution merely sets up a government to protect the rule of law and outlines how the government can protect, but not infringe on our liberties!

We are now in a place where we fear our government... wire taps, spying internally, creation of the North American Union, and now the confiscation of our last means with which to protect ourselves.

I have five words for you:

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS