Ok, here is my WTF article for the week. And I’ve got a few things to spit out about it.
“Dozen Armed With Guns Protest Obama Speech
About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/18/dozen-protesters-guns-outside-obama-speech/
So a bunch of people go to see the President speak. In the designated visitors section, were several patriotic law abiding individuals, exercising their right to open carry. The police spoke with them, everyone was legal.
AND NO ONE SHOT AT THE PRESIDENT!
Let me repeat that for Paul Helmke, President of the gang I call “The Brady Bunch”.
Not one of those armed protestors did anything to threaten the President, the Presidential detail or other civilians.
The Secret Service spokesman, Ed Donovan, even stated those armed protestors did nothing to change the game plan for the President’s security. The Secret Service was not worried enough about armed protestors to change their plans. Imagine that!
People exercising their right to speak, to rally together and protest. They continued to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear firearms.
President Obama is our currently elected leader. I may not like him. I may not like his policies, his plans or his czars and advisors. But I have no desire to see ill or hurt befall him or his family. The damage such an act would have on this nation would ensure the end of the Republic. I hope Mr. Obama lives a long life, outside of his installment as the current POTUS. I also hope that his tenure as President is short, before he tears this great nation apart.
P.Blacksmith
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
18.8.09
20.2.09
Subject versus Citizen
A realistic question for you:
If an unarmed person is 'subject' of their government and an armed person is a 'citizen' to their government, which would you rather be? A person 'subject' to the whims of the masses, the government and the corruption? Or a 'citizen' who is a part of their society, helping guide and drive their nation in good times and bad?
Myself? I'm a Citizen. That is with the capital 'C'.
More on Citizenship, later tonight, in another post.
P.Blacksmtih
If an unarmed person is 'subject' of their government and an armed person is a 'citizen' to their government, which would you rather be? A person 'subject' to the whims of the masses, the government and the corruption? Or a 'citizen' who is a part of their society, helping guide and drive their nation in good times and bad?
Myself? I'm a Citizen. That is with the capital 'C'.
More on Citizenship, later tonight, in another post.
P.Blacksmtih
27.6.08
Freedom Wins with Scalia
Interesting dissenting comment by Stevens.
The majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons.”
Ok. One question: WTF?
210 years ago, the founders were businessmen and farmers (mostly) who were tired of being oppressed by a tyrannous government. At that time, the most popular method of feeding a family was through the use of a plow and a gun.
When the Founding Fathers initially stood up against the King of England, they were empowered to do such with the use of firearms and weapons. If the oppressing government of the time had a restriction on firearms (as England has, now), we may STILL be a colony. As a collection of colonies there was no centralized militia that belonged to the colonies. Any military present was owned and operated by the King and his representatives. Washington and the boys had to form companies of men from volunteers. These groups of volunteers became the militia for that colony and later that state, but very few of these militia men were full time soldiers.
Approximately one quarter of these militia men were the famed Minutement. Members of teams of men from the colonial militia vowed to be ready for battle within one minute of notice. These men were the ones that responded to Paul Revere’s warning that “the British are coming” as the British marched towards the arsenals in Lexington and Concord. Their goal was the collection of the colonists weapons.
The founders remembered this fact as they wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rather than keeping weapons under the control of a government where corruption was going to be rife (eventually and now), the people should be allowed to keep and maintain ownership of a means to defend themselves, not only against the unlawful, but also against the potential tyranny of the fledgling republic being born.
Most Colonial militia were provided neither arms nor uniforms. They were required to equip themselves. Most wore their regular farming or work clothes. Their weaponry consisted of hunting rifles. As the Continental Army regulars received European style military training, the Militia received very little. While their rifles were accurate at long range (as hunting rifles would be), they were not equipped for bayonets. Rather than fight in the traditional dense lines and columns, the militia men were used as irregulars. Irregulars are primarily skirmishers and sharpshooters. It is from these men that snipers became a valued military tool.
THIS is the growth of our nation with the private ownership of firearms. In the ten score years since, our nation has grown and changed from a nation of the people to a nation of corporations, lobbyists and special interest groups, liberal/conservative clashes and big business/big government. History shows that the big government of that day did not have the best interest of the majority of it’s people at heart (does this sound familiar to today?).
A desire to be free, access to weapons and a willingness to kill other humans to gain that freedom are the only reasons we are here, today. Take any one of those away, and we would not have had a chance. Without personal ownership and access to weapons and ammunition our current populace will be easy targets (VATech?) unable to defend themselves against those willing to break the law.
The majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons.”
Ok. One question: WTF?
210 years ago, the founders were businessmen and farmers (mostly) who were tired of being oppressed by a tyrannous government. At that time, the most popular method of feeding a family was through the use of a plow and a gun.
When the Founding Fathers initially stood up against the King of England, they were empowered to do such with the use of firearms and weapons. If the oppressing government of the time had a restriction on firearms (as England has, now), we may STILL be a colony. As a collection of colonies there was no centralized militia that belonged to the colonies. Any military present was owned and operated by the King and his representatives. Washington and the boys had to form companies of men from volunteers. These groups of volunteers became the militia for that colony and later that state, but very few of these militia men were full time soldiers.
Approximately one quarter of these militia men were the famed Minutement. Members of teams of men from the colonial militia vowed to be ready for battle within one minute of notice. These men were the ones that responded to Paul Revere’s warning that “the British are coming” as the British marched towards the arsenals in Lexington and Concord. Their goal was the collection of the colonists weapons.
The founders remembered this fact as they wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rather than keeping weapons under the control of a government where corruption was going to be rife (eventually and now), the people should be allowed to keep and maintain ownership of a means to defend themselves, not only against the unlawful, but also against the potential tyranny of the fledgling republic being born.
Most Colonial militia were provided neither arms nor uniforms. They were required to equip themselves. Most wore their regular farming or work clothes. Their weaponry consisted of hunting rifles. As the Continental Army regulars received European style military training, the Militia received very little. While their rifles were accurate at long range (as hunting rifles would be), they were not equipped for bayonets. Rather than fight in the traditional dense lines and columns, the militia men were used as irregulars. Irregulars are primarily skirmishers and sharpshooters. It is from these men that snipers became a valued military tool.
THIS is the growth of our nation with the private ownership of firearms. In the ten score years since, our nation has grown and changed from a nation of the people to a nation of corporations, lobbyists and special interest groups, liberal/conservative clashes and big business/big government. History shows that the big government of that day did not have the best interest of the majority of it’s people at heart (does this sound familiar to today?).
A desire to be free, access to weapons and a willingness to kill other humans to gain that freedom are the only reasons we are here, today. Take any one of those away, and we would not have had a chance. Without personal ownership and access to weapons and ammunition our current populace will be easy targets (VATech?) unable to defend themselves against those willing to break the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)