What do you do when they come for your guns. Do you Fight ?

[Hog Farmer]

This a a must read.



“In God we trust!”
A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS ALSO BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE! INCLUDING YOUR FREEDOM!!

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly.
I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists.
God help us all if it ever does happen.

PS Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fictionnovelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State Universityin Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigationand Shooting Reconstructionare widely published in forensicjournals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."


I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.


Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?
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.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.
A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my RESPONSIBILITYto respond in the name of liberty. But many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.
Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.


I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

---------------------------------

[BucEyedPea]

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."~ Madison, Federalist #10

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

and you're using Wikipedia to prove that? Well I'll be. Wikipedia isn't exactly known for always being accurate either, since anyone can edit it. It's had some of it's own controversies. It's only good for a starting point. For instance it also claims Lincoln was trying for compensated emancipation when he actually only gave lip service to it.

For someone who never cites anything other than lewrockwell.com or mises.org (or whatever it is) I find it laughable that you would criticize anyone's sources. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but frankly it's collected knowledge and tends to be highly accurate. More laughable is your comment on Lincoln, since you are incapable of seeing Civil War / Lincoln history through anything except your own blinders.

In any event, between the fact that lunch didn't even exist in the English language until months after he died, and that the quote doesn't appear in any of his written works and doesn't even appear in Bartlett's 1919 Franklin Quotations, we're probably about as confident as we can be that he DIDN'T say it, no matter how much people would like him to have said it.

Quotation not mentioned in Bartlett?s Franklin Quotations (1919):

John Bartlett (1820?1905). Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.
Benjamin Franklin (1706?1790)

http://www.bartleby.com/100/245.html

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=389308



And, frankly, just read it. It's really a modern style of phrasing. Not that THAT is proof, of course, but the instant I saw it I had to go looking because it really didn't look right.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Chronic straw man arguments are a pet peeve of mine. Amnorix swims in them.

I'm not even making an argument (other than questioning the veracity of the quote) you ignorant baboon.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

For someone who never cites anything other than lewrockwell.com or mises.org (or whatever it is) I find it laughable that you would criticize anyone's sources.

Which is, of course, another lie. I've even used wiki at times.
In addition to the fact, that multiple authors post articles on his cite ranging from conservatives, progressives and libertarians....as well as links to other news sources. You obviously don't know very much about Lew's media site which challenges the Establishment's canned positions.

Wikipedia isn't perfect, but frankly it's collected knowledge and tends to be highly accurate.

Some people would find this laughable. Wiki removes some things that are true as well to maintain some PC'ness. Or "acceptable" knowledge.
I'd at least drop the "highly" part. I've seen them have battles over facts with others. For some things they're fine or just a good starting point.

More laughable is your comment on Lincoln, since you are incapable of seeing Civil War / Lincoln history through anything except your own blinders.

Well, there you go again not to mention your being the Pot Calling Kettle Black.

You see the Civil War through the eyes of a Northerner...a big govt Northerner at that.
I used to see it like that. At least, I have been able to change my view when gaining new information. And that did not start with Lew either. It developed over the years including meeting and knowing more southerners. History is about viewpoints.

You need to get out of your bubble up there.

In any event, between the fact that lunch didn't even exist in the English language until months after he died, and that the quote doesn't appear in any of his written works and doesn't even appear in Bartlett's 1919 Franklin Quotations, we're probably about as confident as we can be that he DIDN'T say it, no matter how much people would like him to have said it.



http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=389308

Frankly, I don't care who said it. It's a true observation. There are enough similar quotes by some Framers that reveals the same sentiment.

And, frankly, just read it. It's really a modern style of phrasing. Not that THAT is proof, of course, but the instant I saw it I had to go looking because it really didn't look right.

It? The quote? I read it.

It really didn't look right? Too you perhaps.
Quotes by past people will always have some element of that, if they don't confirm our bias. However, men say many things and can even sound contradictory at times. Then people change too.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, there you go again not to mention your being the Pot Calling Kettle Black.

You see the Civil War through the eyes of a Northerner...a big govt Northerner at that.
I used to see it like that. At least, I have been able to change my view when gaining new information. And that did not start with Lew either. It developed over the years including meeting and knowing more southerners. History is about viewpoints.

You need to get out of your bubble up there.

History is about viewpoints, to an extent, but it's also about facts. You pick the ones you like, blow up others out of all proportion (riots in New York, even Northerners HATED Lincoln!), and ignore everything that doesn't help your cause. Just because you've decided to adopt the by-far minority position doesn't mean you've progressed in some way, or escaped some kind of bubble, any more than someone who fell in line with Flat-Earthers would be right because they're in the minority.

And I've also read Southern authors on the Civil War, so there goes that bubble-mentality approach.

[rockymtnchief]

After a vote of 28-21 in the state Senate on Wednesday, March 13, Montana is moving toward being the first state in the country to approve a bill prohibiting the enforcement of a potential federal ban on semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity magazines within its borders. The bill, HB 302, also calls for criminal penalties for any employee, official, or officer of either local or state government who enforces such a measure within Montana.

The key portion of HB 302 reads:

A peace officer, state employee, or employee of any political subdivision is prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines and is also prohibited from participating in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines.

The whole story at http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ification-bill

[Hog Farmer]

Good for Montana, I expect Texas to do the same.

[Dayze]

Montana is smart. Love Montana

[Comrade Crapski]

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/