Guns; you cannot take up arms against tyranny if you give them up.

You might as well make laws to stop dogs from barking and babies from crying. The only thing that deters a bad guy with a gun is another gun pointed in his direction. If you truly want to be safer in a dangerous world, cancel the gun laws on the books and the ones in your head. If there were no guns violence would not decrease one iota. If you can outlaw anger and hate, prejudice and jealousy…violence will subside…outlaw guns and violence increases because it is the only weapon we have statistics for. Believe the statistics that demonstrate guns actually prevent or reduce crime, because they are the statistics that are skewed to win anti gun legislation; useless, anti constitutional, crime abetting legislation. Do not create your own rules, make up statistics or believe in the myth that “comprehensive” is good; usually it’s not, especially when Obama calls for comprehensive change of any kind.

Americans are telling you with their feet and their wallets that guns are here to stay. Learn to appreciate the fact that nobody calls for an unarmed policeman and crooks don’t intentionally look for armed victims. Unless you are an avowed hypocrite, when faced with a life and death situation you would welcome a friendly gun-toter or curse the day you gave yours up. Who would object to an armed good Samaritan who shows up while some gungster is trying to separate you from your worldly goods or the pulse in your veins? No sane person.

Then why is it that when a political hack calls for “sensible” gun laws even certain gun owners agree in principle and then in form? Gun laws are unnecessary and unconstitutional. Guns don’t think, don’t act, don’t have opinions, friends or enemies. Laws to prevent people from doing stupid things keep honest people from going rogue, not criminals; the weapon of choice being the weapon on hand; always. Cain brained Abel with a rock to make this very point.

Right now Joe Biden is filling his dance card with “reasonable” people from both sides of the aisle. Obama wants to show consensus on the issue and needs well meaning gun owners to agree in some fashion to a degree of gun restriction; dupes. He’s hoping gun owners will make his case against the NRA. There are many well meaning, otherwise conservative gun owners who are already in front of the issue, with their “limited” ideas on limiting gun access. Gabrielle Giffords is a sympathetic, purported gun owner now calling for new regulations but she is a Democrat. Not one of these people can tell you how to make a criminal become law abiding when it comes to possession of a firearm. Registration does nothing to deter a crime of passion and premeditated crimes simply require the acquisition of an unregistered gun or rock, or one registered to someone else. You want to stop crimes of passion? Sure, simply outlaw, knives, poison, rocks, agida, looks that kill and vehicles like Buicks and golf carts. Make it illegal to push people out of windows or under trains. Mission accomplished.

P.S. Not one of the democrats or liberals who own guns has offered to turn theirs in. Somehow they want to magically take guns out of the hands of criminals and other Republicans. They should be aware, and they’re not, that Obama wants their guns, our guns and all guns confiscated…well not his guys’ guns. What would he do with the tons of hollow point bullets he just delivered to a few selected government agencies around town?

Now reread the Second Amendment, which Barak disingenuously claims he is for. No gun law meets the sniff test. Barak has been working feverishly since his first day in office four years ago, to come up with a plan or a reason to disarm all Americans. There have been law suits against states trying to prevent the transport of guns, the manufacture of guns and ammunition, plots to rally public opinion to the anti gun side and even a repeated attempt, even now being considered, to give the United Nations some form of authority to restrict small arms through a bogus international treaty. There has been legislation to limit the number of rounds in a clip, certain classifications of guns etc. If you are not aware that Obama’s administration is the most anti Second Amendment in the history of the country, you have not been listening. The Sandy Hook tragedy is just a crisis made to order Barak et al will exploit, true to form.

There remains, after all is said and done, one reason only for a government to clamor and plot for disarming its citizens; tyranny, in a word, bad intentions in two. A government that has no fear of its electorate would prefer that citizens own guns or at the very least defend their right of ownership. It is not likely that any Socialist, Marxist or dictator would be comfortable knowing his people may come for him one bright day, in the middle of the night. Barak has as much to be concerned over as any potentate in the Middle East where the slaughter of citizens goes unfettered when stones face tanks.

Of all the trying times in America’s history this is the time Jefferson believed we would best be served with the Right to have and bear arms. “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

 They are trying. Do not relent.


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Dorine  On January 9, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is magnificent blog. An excellent read. I will certainly be back.

    • treasonamongus  On January 14, 2013 at 9:43 pm

      We are all experts if we believe in the Constitution as a blueprint for democracy and the bible of our Republic.
      Thanks Dorine.

  • Michael Benjamin  On January 12, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    As always Guido, I appreciate your activism. I wrote a little something myself about this topic. There’s something bigger going on here. I believe that “the powers that shouldn’t be” are attempting to capitalize on our emotions, perhaps even our love for our children, to enforce this measure. I pray to God I’m wrong.

    “Keep your Guns, Surrender your Illusion”

    Yesterday, the heated debate over gun control took a turn for the dramatic. Vice President Biden hinted that President Obama could issue an executive order (EO) which would regulate gun ownership, sparking an irate reaction from those whom the mainstream media refers to as “Second Amendment fundamentalists”.

    A column in the Washington Times yesterday outlined the issue. Joseph Cotto writes “some seem to believe that if Obama were to issue executive orders on guns, America would be placed under totalitarian rule. Some people really will believe anything.”

    In an appeal for people to not buy into the ideas of the “fundamentalists”, the article proceeds to explain how executive orders have been used for over a century, that the Supreme Court ruled long ago that EOs cannot exceed congressional authority, and that responsible gun ownership is under no threat.
    The article continues to explain that though the issuance of a EO would not typically be the best option, a divided congress coming to an agreement on this divisive issue “may not be possible in the current climate”, so a EO may be the best option. The article invokes the horror of the Sandy Hook incident and asks the question about assault weapons, “what need does anyone outside of law enforcement or the military have for guns of this power?”

    Cotto goes on to state that “Obama has the desire and the responsibility to help craft reasonable regulations to keep people like Adam Lanza from having access to the means to kill dozens in minutes.” The article concludes by stating that the president “deserves our full support, even if he has to do what is best through an executive order, or a series of them.” Cotto infers here that there is more to come, and that all EOs issued should be supported by the people.

    What is most disturbing about this article is not the pro-centralized government authority slant, for that perspective is offered throughout the media and from the angles of supporters of both political parties. The most disturbing feature of this article is not the verbal propaganda of referring to ardent supporters of the constitution as “fundamentalists”. No, that type of yellow journalism is expected at this point.

    What is most disturbing about this article is that the overwhelming majority of Americans will process their thoughts about this extremely important information based on viewpoints such as this one. It is disturbing that so many do not hear from the “fundamentalists”, and that if/when they do, the “fundamentalists” will have to overcome the preconceived notion that their viewpoints are radical, irrational, and not to be trusted. When one of these “fundamentalists” appear on big-time pundit shows such as The O’Reilly Factor, the public not only has to exercise objectivity while listening, but they also have to overcome the highly emotional imagery imbedded in their minds as a result of hours of exhaustive exposure to events like Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook. This operative conditioning employed by the media is both scientific and around-the-clock, and that is why it is understandable that so many of us are unable to consider alternate perspectives.

    We should take the time to get informed on this issue and others from all perspectives. Get your heads out of the sand people! We have become conditioned to accept anything that is released by the mainstream media. Conversely, we are conditioned to discount independent media sources which offer a countering perspective as radical, fundamentalist, and extreme.

    The complete account of these atrocious and murderous incidents is not available to us, therefore we should not be satisfied to take a stance until we uncover the truth. Was the Sandy Hook incident, among other similar shootings, a false flag operation the goal of which is to repeal Second Amendment rights? Who was the camoflauged man who was apprehended by police in Sandy Hook live on ABC, only to never again gain mention? Why does Robbie Parker, the father of the murdered 6 year old Emilie appear to be laughing before addressing the camera? Why does the medical examiner Wayne Carver demonstrate a glaring ineptitude to field questions from the press? If you don’t know what I’m talking about, do a search on YouTube using their names.

    Though we should fervently pray that these questions are blasphemous hogwash, the questions which would lead to that conclusion remain unanswered. Similarly, if you still believe, without contemplating alternate viewpoints, that a few dubiously skilled Saudis orchestrated the hijacking of four jetliners and performed feats of aircraft piloting that even the most accomplished pilots have failed to do in a simulated manner, and that two of those jetliners took down two of the biggest, strongest buildings on the planet, you should get a grip. Have the guts to seek out an alternate perspective, the fortitude to consider it, and the courage to question the veracity of the information that the corporate media dictates.

    Here’s what the “Second Amendment fundamentalists”, or those who can be more accurately described as constitutionalists, are saying. Stewart Rhodes is the founder of Oathkeepers, an association of active duty military, veterans, and peace officers who pledge to keep their oath to support and defend the constitution. He spoke on Coast to Coast AM this week about current gun control policy.

    The main difference between people like Rhodes and those who broadcast the corporate media is that the constitutionalists are predictive whereas the corporate media is reactive. The corporate media puts out whatever information those at the top decree, and with the many conflicts of interest prevalent at that level, political and financial, it’s more than likely that the information has a biased agenda. The constitutionalists have looked very deep into the heart of the issues, compared them to similar events in history, and present their information so as to avoid repeating our past follies. And though there is by definition a bias to any individual or collective perspective, those in the independent media are motivated by passion whereas corporate media moguls are motivated by profit and the power of mass influence.

    With regards to gun control, Rhodes offers a much more detailed depiction of what’s possible to occur as the result of an executive order. First, he says (along with many others) that everyone will have to physically take in their guns and have them registered into a large federal database. This process will include being photographed and fingerprinted. At that point a background check will be conducted and those fit to own a gun will retain their ownership rights.

    Rhodes then explains that history is not without examples of this type of control in the past (e.g. 1775 United States and 1935 Germany) and that each time it has happened a similar process has unfolded. First is registration, then confiscation, then mass murder. He explains that there is a massive network of liberty-minded, freedom-loving Americans who are aware of what’s going on and who will neither give up nor register their guns. He quotes the 33 year old Thomas Jefferson that “the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government”.

    Rhodes talked about the hypocrisy on display by those in power trying to curb gun ownership having armed guards for their personal protection. One of the greatest leaders in American history, Martin Luther King Jr., voluntarily gave up his gun upon the realization that he could not rightly lead his people in coordinated non-violent resistance should he continue to retain his arms. We should ask ourselves whether or not we believe that if gun ownership was banned, would those in high political office give up their personal armed guards? Would they walk the walk and set the example that they are trying to implement for the general population? When considered, it’s more than doubtful. They realize that guns play a major role in preventing violent acts against them.

    Listen up folks, gun ownership isn’t for everyone. If you don’t like guns and/or you do not feel the need to own one, more power to ya. If you take a spiritual stance and voluntarily relinquish your guns, you are to be commended. And someday soon, we will arrive at the “Promised Land” about which King and the great ones have spoken. But we won’t get there except by our choosing. And we certainly won’t get any closer to this ideal by blindly and non-judiciously receiving operative conditioning from those who self-righteously proclaim to know what’s in the best interest of all.

    I am blessed to have been a part of the world’s greatest military for seven years and let me just tell you, the vast majority of those serving in the US armed forces are men and women of integrity and honor. I retain confidence in them and faith that they will prevail in doing the right thing. Fellow Americans, it is time to realize that our deliverance will be brought about by our own doing; no individual or government entity can do it for us. As we realize this, we control our destiny and send the message that we will not be duped.

    Fret not, fear not, for all is well. As we gain awareness that the world as we have heretofore perceived it is but an illusion, we also gain awareness of our individual greatness. Just as Viktor Frankl came to this realization as a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp, so can we attain the same awareness in our respective physical circumstances, however bad they may appear. It is high time we demanded better from those who serve us.

    Giving away our personal liberties cannot improve our quality of life. Allowing our thoughts to be contolled by the corporate media does not serve our best interest. We will engage in non-violent resistance to oppression. We will preserve our cherished liberties. And as awareness of our reality increases, we will display forgiveness to those who have trespassed against us. And as patience, empathy, and love is manifested, so will these divisive issues and oppressive policies fall to the wayside.

    • treasonamongus  On January 14, 2013 at 9:40 pm

      You have to believe that if obama could wave an executive order to accomplish his vision of gun control (all gone) he would. Else why all the fuss, end runs, law suits and pretty speeches? He hasn’t hesitated to use exec priv when he could so we must believe he is capable of it. There is no greater reason to hold firm against ALL gun legislation at this time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: