If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

·Food for thought in this great debate.

·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.

P.S. - Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:
Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."

·Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

·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.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

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 responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that 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 cannot 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.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

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 cannot 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?

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

Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning. 

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Can Average Citizens Really Save Lives in Active-Shooter Situations? Here’s What Experts Found

Apr. 8, 2013 8:39am Billy Hallowell

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Should citizens defend themselves or remain passive during active shooter situations?

This is a controversial query that has been asked and revisited in light of recent mass shootings. And the question also spawned nation-wide discussion, once again, after a video being touted by law enforcement agencies across the country emerged earlier this year.

The clip, entitled, “Run. Hide. Fight,” features a reenactment of an emergency situation and tips for decisive action. Originally produced by the Houston Police Department, the video showed victims actively engaging and fighting against a fictional perpetrator.

And following the clip’s media coverage, it seems some research has emerged that does corroborate the notion that victims can help save lives by thwarting assailants. On Saturday, The New York Times published a report about this very issue, highlighting that some researchers and police, in the wake of recent mass shootings, are encouraging more active involvement from citizens.

Chuck Wexler, executive director of Police Executive Research Forum, told the outlet that there has been a paradigm shift. He said that the “don’t get involved, call 911″ advice is no longer pertinent, with “active shooter” situations requiring Americans to defend themselves — and the lives of others.

The transformation hasn’t only impacted citizen involvement. Police, too, are using more hard-hitting tactics. In an effort to save additional lives, rather than waiting for backup, first responders now go in and attempt to defuse dangerous situations. Considering the death tolls seen in recent mass shootings, there simply isn’t time to wait for SWAT teams and other backup forces to arrive at crime scenes.

Here’s how the Times frames recent research that backs both citizen involvement and swifter police action:

Research on mass shootings over the last decade has bolstered the idea that people at the scene of an attack have a better chance of survival if they take an active stance rather than waiting to be rescued by the police, who in many cases cannot get there fast enough to prevent the loss of life.

In an analysis of 84 such shooting cases in the United States from 2000 to 2010, for example, researchers at Texas State University found that the average time it took for the police to respond was three minutes.

“But you see that about half the attacks are over before the police get there, even when they arrive quickly,” said J. Pete Blair, director for research of the university’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center and an author of the research, which is set to be published in a book this year.

In the absence of a police presence, how victims responded often made the difference between life and death, Dr. Blair said.

In 16 of the attacks studied, researches came to some intriguing findings: civilians played a key role in stopping the attacker in those cases. In three of the cases they shot the attacker, while in the other 13 instances they subdued him in some other manner.

“In other attacks, civilians have obstructed or delayed the gunman until the police arrived,” the Times goes on to say.

In short, the suggestion is that taking an active role instead of a passive one during an attack has saved lives.

Perhaps the most striking part of the research findings came when Dr. Blair and his associates studied survival rates at Virginia Tech. While in two classrooms students and teachers tried to hide or play dead after the killer entered the room, most of these individuals were killed.

But in a third classroom where professor and Holocaust survivor Liviu Librescu told students to jump from the second story window as he held the door to keep the shooter out, those in the room fared much better. The professor perished, but many survived. And in yet another classroom where a desk was placed against the door, every person lived.

“The take-home message is that you’re not helpless and the actions you take matter,” Dr. Blair told the Times. “You can help yourself and certainly buy time for the police to get there.”

So, it seems conventional wisdom has changed, with experts telling average citizens to learn the skills needed to defend themselves in the event of an emergency situation. Read the entire Times report here.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section. By the way, here’s the aforementioned video encouraging people to fight back, entitled, “Run. Hide. Fight”:

​This story has been updated for clarity.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Former SEAL Has Special Message for Bloomberg in New NRA Video: If You Really Cared About Freedom…

Apr. 8, 2013 11:45am Jonathon M. Seidl

Former Navy SEAL Dom Raso has a special message for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others like him who are pushing for more gun control: “If you really cared about the American people, you’d stand up for more freedom for them, and not more power and status for yourself.”

The 12-year veteran is one of the newest NRA News contributors and has just released a diatribe against politicians who say they stand up for American safety but are quick to sacrifice essential freedom.

“It is unbelievable that politicians like Mayor Bloomberg think that they are experts on personal protection,” Raso says in the video. “Me and the guys I fought with, we didn’t go to war so that some politician could dictate whatever he thinks is best for the American people.”

“What have those guys ever accomplished that gives them any credibility on the subject of personal protection?” he adds later:

http://www.nranews.com/commentators/video/episode-4-power-breeds-ar...

Raso’s salvo is the fourth installment in a series featuring fresh voices in the gun debate. The other episodes have featured viral gun star Colion Noir. You can watch his first episode here and his others here.

The other newest contributor to the NRA family is Natalie Foster, editor of “A Girl’s Guide to Guns.” Her episode is forthcoming. In the meantime, you can acquaint yourself with all three by reading our past write-up on the group and the NRA’s push to reach a wider audience with its message.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Senate Action on Gun Bills this Week 

 
Dear NRA Member:

The U.S. Senate is set to act on anti-gun legislation as early as this week. These proposals are the latest attempt by anti-gun Senators to erode our Second Amendment rights by making it illegal for law-abiding gun owners to transfer firearms without the federal government’s approval; and by banning commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and magazines, to name a few. Unfortunately, none of these proposals address the critical issues of fixing our broken mental health system; securing our schools; or prosecuting violent criminals.

However, there is a proposal worthy of gun owners' support. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mark Begich (D-AK) have introduced S. 480, the "NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013", which will provide accurate definitions of persons who pose serious threats to themselves or others and therefore should be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, while protecting the rights of those who should not be included in NICS. Further, this legislation will protect the rights of America's veterans, by no longer allowing their Second Amendment freedoms to be denied based on an administrative finding that a person requires appointment of a representative to mange his financial affairs.

The NRA fully supports Senators Graham and Begich's important legislation.

The time is now. Please contact your U.S. Senators today, let them know you are a NRA member and encourage them to support S. 480 and to oppose all anti-gun legislation.

You can contact your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121.

- National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

---

Alan M. Gottlieb Second Amendment Foundation James Madison Building Dept Code 7642 12500 NE 10th Place Bellevue, WA 98005

TIMEGRAM

 

The Second Amendment Foundation Needs You

PATRIOTS: The Obama Administration's agenda is clearer than ever. They want gun control at every level; city, state, and federal. Anti-gun attempts at federal gun control have been suppressed thus far but they will push Obama's federal gun control agenda in April when the Congress returns from its spring break.

The Obama Administration is also pressuring states and cities to pass unconstitutional gun control laws since their radical ideas are having trouble clearing Congress. Obama is letting New York Mayor Bloomberg do the dirty work as the anti-gun mayor is spending $12 Million on an anti-gun television ad campaign from Mayors Against Illegal Guns to push Senators in key states to back gun control efforts.

We are doing most of the heavy lifting with more than 20 active court cases. It is imperative we collect as many resources as possible to defend the Second Amendment from attacks by anti-gun laws in every city and state from coast to coast. WE NEED YOUR MOST GENEROUS HELP NOW!

SELECT HERE & Make a much-needed EMERGENCY donation to SAF today.
Your generosity is much appreciated.

A huge victory was earned for SAF on February 22nd when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law. Now Illinois lawmakers have about 150 days to pass a law that will impose reasonable limitations consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment.

Along with the need to raise funds to pay attorneys hired for important gun rights lawsuits, SAF must continue to pay thousands of dollars' worth of bills to maintain free grassroots meetings, trainings and seminars.

We currently have over 20 open court cases we are involved in and it is our goal to earn a victory for each and every one of them. Our legal action ranges from lawsuits against cities, states, our Attorney General Eric Holder, and the challenge of certain rulings that violate our Second Amendment rights. You can view our list of current litigation in the chart below:

SELECT HERE & Make a much-needed EMERGENCY donation to SAF today.
Your generosity is much appreciated.

Case Name	Description	TAKE ACTION
Plastino v. Koster	Challenge to Missouri ban on CCW by legal resident aliens.	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Teixeira v. County of Alameda	Challenge to Alameda County gun shop permit requirements.	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Churchill v. Harris	Challenge to CA policy of refusing to return firearms.	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Jackson v. King	Challenge to NM law barring CCW permits for legal resident aliens.	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Winbigler v. WCHA	Challenge to WCHA's ban on personally-owned firearms by residents based on 2nd Amendment	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Ezell v. Chicago	Challenge to Chicago's gun range prohibition based on 1st and 2nd Amendment	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Peruta v. San Diego	SAF and CalGuns have filed an amicus curiae brief in Peruta v. San Diego County	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Richards v. Harris	Challenge to California "assault weapon" arrest	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Moore v. Madigan	Challenge to Illinois ban on carrying guns For self-defense	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Lane v. Holder	Challenge to ban on interstate handgun sales	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Fletcher v. Haas	Challenge to Massachusetts gun ban for legal alien residents	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Kwong v. Bloomberg	Challenge to New York City's excessive gun permit fees	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Piszczatoski v. Maenza (formerly Muller v. Maenza)	Challenge to New Jersey Officials permit denials	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Schrader v. Holder	Challenge to misdemeanor gun rights denial	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Nordyke v. King	Amicus brief filed in Nordyke case; argues for strict scrutiny	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Woolard v. Sheridan	Maryland handgun permit denial	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Kachalsky v. Cacace	Challenge to New York's "good cause" carry permit requirement	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Bateman v. Purdue	SAF Sues to Overturn North Carolina's 'Emergency Powers' Gun Bans	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Palmer v. DC	SAF Sues District of Columbia over Carrying of Handguns	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Richards v. Prieto (formerly Sykes v. McGinness)	SAF Challenges Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms in California	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Pena v. Cid	SAF Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Hodgkins v. Holder	SAF Sues Eric Holder Over Gun Rights of Non-resident American Citizens	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT
Hanson v. DC	DC Handgun Roster Lawsuit: SAF Challenges D.C. Handgun Ban Scheme	SELECT HERE TO SUPPORT

SELECT HERE & Make a much-needed EMERGENCY donation to SAF today.
Your generosity is much appreciated.

There has been such an incredible union of Second Amendment Patriots since Obama was elected President. Not only through purchasing firearms but by standing together and standing up for our right to keep and bear arms. Since Obama took office there have been over 65 million firearms purchased in the United States, mostly due to the fear of Obama's anti-gun agenda.

We must continue to work together and attack this anti-gun agenda head on. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE ANTI-GUNNERS MORE RABIBLY DETERMINED TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

SELECT HERE & Make a much-needed EMERGENCY donation to SAF today.
Your generosity is much appreciated.

Financial needs could not have come at a worse time. We must not run out of funds during the middle of this fight. There is no way we could have budgeted for all this and the needs continue to increase.

Anti-Gun groups have deep pockets and big donors contributing. We rely on the backbone of America which is great patriots like you.

Even worse...Sarah Brady Group and the Gun Ban Coalition are using the Connecticut shooting to push for new national anti-gun laws.

The liberal anti-gun media wants blood, and it's ours.

SELECT HERE & Make a much-needed EMERGENCY donation to SAF today.
Your generosity is much appreciated.

Gun grabbers think that past gun control efforts have worn us down and hope you and I will quit the fight to protect individual rights.

I am counting on you. I know times are tough for everyone but if you could please make a special emergency gift to SAF of $100 or $50 or whatever you can afford, anything will help.

Please contribute your emergency gift immediately. Tomorrow is too late. I know I can count on you.

Times are tough but as things get tougher it's critical we have gun rights.

SELECT HERE & Make a much-needed EMERGENCY donation to SAF today.
Your generosity is much appreciated.

To continue educational and legal action projects we rely on people like you who care. Unlike gun grabbers we don't have deep pockets or big shot donors but we will never back down from them. Not with our Second Amendment in jeopardy.

Donate to SAF NOW and get "Keep Calm and Carry" and "American By Bi...

Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder
Second Amendment Foundation

P.S. Remember, the anti-gunners are raising tens of thousands of dollars to steal our rights from us -- we need your support now to help stop them dead in their tracks!

To send a check, please mail to:

Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
James Madison Building
Dept Code 7642-n-saf
12500 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Paid for by Second Amendment Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Contributions are tax deductible. Copyright © 2013 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.