Arguments FOR private possession of assault weapons

[HeirofNumenor]

Lundbaek, why do you include TWA 800 as a false flag? What purpose did it serve if it was one? The others I understand - just not this one...

[JohnnyL]

Lundbaek, why do you include TWA 800 as a false flag? What purpose did it serve if it was one? The others I understand - just not this one...

I don't know if it would be false flag, but definitely "cover up".
Three main possible theories: US Navy did it (on and off purpose); a foreign sub did it; the official story: a frayed wire in the gas tank; etc.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://rense.com/general19/twasomeone.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me - and I have this on tape - that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.
Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn't want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement. "


http://rense.com/general15/twa800satellites.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"In 1996, the U.S. had two KH-11 satellites in polar orbit. Their infrared sensors have a resolution down to a few inches. Ray Lahr, a TWA Flight 800 aficionado, has pointed out that if one of those two satellites was over New York on July 17, 1996, there is a lot of information about TWA 800 that has not been released. Apparently one of them was able to record images of the TWA 800 crash. Request for that imagery or descriptions of it have been made under the Freedom of Information Act to both the Department of Defense and the CIA. Both have acknowledged that they have the images, but they have refused to release them or descriptions of them to the public.
In rejecting a FOIA request last January, the CIA claimed that information was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. It cited exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3), which cover material that must be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and for the protection of intelligence sources and methods. The CIA has actively propagated the government's claim that the TWA 800 crash was the result of a fuel-tank explosion. It is hard to see why releasing satellite images of an airliner fuel tank exploding would imperil national security, damage our foreign relations or reveal anything not already known about the use of satellites."



Sherman Skolnick: "Such as, the cover up, started with Bush crony Bill Clinton, as to the missiles that blew up TWA Flight 800 in 1996. [Counter-terrorist experts, who appeared on our tv show, off-camera, told us how the central government is well aware that a submarine, bought by Iran from the former Soviets, and operated by a Russian mercenary crew, most likely fired the missiles taking down Flight 800. Among the dead were 60 French nationals, including 8 members of the French CIA; their team leader refused to get on board and took a later flight.]"



http://rense.com/general11/twa.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Government falsifying, lying about witnesses.

[Tribunal]

moonwim, the article you posted is correct but leaves out te fact that an AR15 can quickly be converted to an M4. The average person, and some not so average gun owners, would have a hard time telling the difference between an AR15 and an M4, especially if either were pointed at you and you were concerned for your safety.

[lundbaek]

I'm getting off topic here, but I think HeirofNumenor is justified in questioning/challenging my including TWA 800 in a list of false flag ops since it does not seem to have been to provoke war. I goofed on that one. And I almost included Pan Am 103, which again did not provoke war other than increased hostilities between the USA and Libya. But I understand that it did take out some American CIA people. They both belong in the same league with KAL 007, which took out a Democrat congressional representative who was every bit as much a constitutionalist as Ron Paul, and very outspoken (The late Congressman Larry P. McDonald, while in Congress, reportedly stated: "The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and communism under the same tent, all under their control...Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.")

To get us back to an important topic, please imagine yourself sitting in church next to a "sweet" couple with any number of kids and the wife pipes up with the comment that guns otta be banned, and her husband says something like well maybe not all guns but certainly those assault rifles because nobody really needs anything like that. You are in church now, so how would you reply briefly in a convincing but civil manner. I need help on this one.

[moonwhim]

Reason versus delusion: Why we need armed defenders in schools to protect the lives of our children
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
http://www.naturalnews.com/z038431_scho ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(NaturalNews) I'm not a member of the NRA, but when an organization states such a powerful, obvious truth that can help save lives, I am obliged to recognize the wisdom of it even if I'm not personally a member of that group. Yesterday, the NRA called for defending our nation's schoolchildren with armed adults in the schools.

The NRA's reasoning is solid. As NRA president Wayne LaPierre explained:

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses -- even sports stadiums -- are all protected by armed security.

We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.

Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family -- our children -- we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

Source: http://www.NRA.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Schools are advertised as defenseless killing zones
The NRA also points out another crucial truth we've all been trying to explain recently: By declaring schools to be "gun free zones," our federal government has advertised to all psychopaths, killers and mass murderers that schools are the safest "target" of choice, where they can succeed in carrying out the most carnage with the least personal risk.

This policy is delusional... it is insane. And it is the product of delusional thinking which abandons all logic and somehow believes that signs are magical devices. But they are not. Signs do not prevent psychopaths with guns from walking into schools and opening fire. If anything, signs actually worsen the risk to our children because they assure psychopathic killers that no one will shoot back.

As the NRA stated yesterday:

Now, we must speak ... for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one -- nobody -- has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame -- from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave -- while provoking others to try to make their mark?

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

The White House and mainstream media have created a massive fear mongering hoax
In truth, the White House and media have created a grand fear mongering hoax, scaring half the country into thinking mad shooters are hiding behind every corner, ready to kill their children. But the actual risk of being killed in a mass shooting in America is virtually zero. Each year, over 32,000 Americans are killed in automobile accidents, meaning that 1,160 times the number of people killed at Sandy Hook.

In America today, you are more likely to be killed by a deer in the road than in a mass shooting. You're more like to die from lightning or a swimming pool accident. Yet the media has whipped up a frothing fear among the American people, practically terrorizing American moms and dads in its obscene effort to push its own selfish political agenda of disarming the American people.

During all this, the media is ignoring all the other relevant factors that promote mass violence:

• Violent movies and video games, including one game called "Kindergarten Shooter"

• Psychiatric drugs, which are almost always linked to mass shootings

• Lack of real mental health care based on nutrition, not dangerous chemicals

• Lack of any armed defense of our children

As the NRA explains:

Here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes -- every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.

And throughout it all, too many in our national media ... their corporate owners ... and their stockholders ... act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

The only thing that can stop a bad person with a gun is a GOOD person with a gun
People who claim to be opposed to guns aren't actually opposed to guns. They still think the President should be guarded by men with guns; that airports should be guarded by men with guns; and that men with guns should come rushing to your home if you call 911 to report a strange person lurking outside your bedroom window.

The point is that it's the nature of the person carrying the gun that matters, not the tool itself.

As the NRA's LaPierre explains:

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America's schools safer -- relying on the brave men and women of America's police force.

Only in an insanely stupid society would people put their children in government buildings, advertise them as completely defenseless, then heavily medicate other children and teens with suicide pills that have been linked to nearly every mass shooting in America.

That's pure insanity. It's time we stopped the insanity and got real about what it takes to stop armed psychopaths from killing our children.

[gruden2.0]

As a caveat before I write anything else, I do not own any guns of any kind. Nevertheless, I do not oppose others' Constitutional rights to bear arms (of any kind).

The Connecticut shooting has been an emotional moment here in my household, especially since my wife works in an elementary school. Her comment just today was that no one needed automatic weapons. I told her it is not the weapons, but the people that fire them that are the problem. In Switzerland, for example, anyone can freely acquire ANY type of weapon, including fully automatic military grade assault rifles (there the gov't even encourages it!). Yet their homicide rates by gun violence is so low they barely track it. That tells me that the presence of such weapons are not automatically followed by violence with their usage.

The real question, in my mind, is why are people using guns to kill others? What I see is that in nearly every instance of these mass shooting are killers who have been taking anti-depressants and pain killers. If we don't get to the root of the problem, it doesn't matter if certain types of weapons are banned. The criminal and unstable elements will seek them out and use them.

It might also be helpful to point out that, for example, the Columbine killers did not possess automatic assault rifles, yet that didn't stop them from killing 15 people. Recently in China 22 students were killed by another student wielding a knife. Assault weapon bans solve nothing. It's the people (and the drugs they take) that are the problem. Killers will always search for a way to kill. What is the best way to protect ourselves from them?

[ktg]

The most effective path to protecting the children in schools is to require all teachers to take a CCW class and allow them the option to concealed carry. Just the fact that teachers might be packing would deter 99% of psychos from trying anything. "With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/conc ... -1.1121161" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Duh! If you were going to shoot up somewhere, would you pick an area where concealed carry is encouraged, or where all guns are outlawed?
Then in the rare instance that someone does decide to shoot up the place, there would be people in a position to immediately stop the psycho.

Now let's look at the opposite spectrum. There are MILLIONS of guns in the US. Anything short of confiscating ALL of them will accomplish nothing. Banning assault weapons, high capacity magazines and whatever else they have up their sleeves will do nothing to stop such attacks. There are already a multitude of laws on the books that do nothing but restrict the freedoms of law abiding people. I think that total confiscation is their ultimate goal. The only way to accomplish that is more killings until enough people get on their side, and with the MSM spouting all the lies about gun control, people will listen. They'll ban assault weapons and hi-cap magazines and the killings will continue, then they'll pass even more restrictive laws and eventually they'll get what they want. Stock up now if you aren't already too late.

[HeirofNumenor]

Now let's look at the opposite spectrum. There are MILLIONS of guns in the US. Anything short of confiscating ALL of them will accomplish nothing. Banning assault weapons, high capacity magazines and whatever else they have up their sleeves will do nothing to stop such attacks. There are already a multitude of laws on the books that do nothing but restrict the freedoms of law abiding people. I think that total confiscation is their ultimate goal. The only way to accomplish that is more killings until enough people get on their side, and with the MSM spouting all the lies about gun control, people will listen. They'll ban assault weapons and hi-cap magazines and the killings will continue, then they'll pass even more restrictive lawas and eventually they'll get what they want. Stock up now if you aren't already too late.

Critical mass, baby

[Steve Clark]

moonwim, the article you posted is correct but leaves out te fact that an AR15 can quickly be converted to an M4. The average person, and some not so average gun owners, would have a hard time telling the difference between an AR15 and an M4, especially if either were pointed at you and you were concerned for your safety.

While an AR15 can look like a M4, it's not necessarily as easy to convert the former to select fire as you have made it sound.

To do so, you need either a DIAS (Drop In Auto Sear which won't fit into most AR15s because the lower receiver is made specifically NOT to allow them) or a Lightning Link. The DIASs are controlled pretty heavily and not easy to come across. The Lightning Link is probably the "easiest" way to convert to full-auto, but while simple it isn't exactly easy and probably requires modifying the bolt carrier. Assuming that you are skilled enough to create one and time it to the bolt carrier, the amount of abuse it would sustain in full-auto firing would require some pretty robust steel in order to be reliable in any way.

To the OP- I have been competing in local matches the last few years (IPSC, IDPA and UDPL 3-gun). I'm pretty competent with my pistol (more than 1 jack rabbit has met its demise from my G35) and shotgun, but would grab my AR in about any situation over the other 2 if I had the chance. They are much more effective against multiple threats, much easier to make hits, and look way better too!

Gratuitous pic of my baby:

[Tribunal]

While an AR15 can look like a M4, it's not necessarily as easy to convert the former to select fire as you have made it sound.

To do so, you need either a DIAS (Drop In Auto Sear which won't fit into most AR15s because the lower receiver is made specifically NOT to allow them) or a Lightning Link. The DIASs are controlled pretty heavily and not easy to come across. The Lightning Link is probably the "easiest" way to convert to full-auto, but while simple it isn't exactly easy and probably requires modifying the bolt carrier. Assuming that you are skilled enough to create one and time it to the bolt carrier, the amount of abuse it would sustain in full-auto firing would require some pretty robust steel in order to be reliable in any way.

How many hours would it take you to covert an AR15 into an M4? Two? Three tops? My point is the average person won't know the difference between your semi-auto function (AR15) and your full-auto function (M4) by looking at your weapon.

Gratuitous pic of my baby:

I like your baby! I also like all the little mags you have. PM me if you have access to more magezines? I'm looking for 30-round magezines. They are becoming hard to find. Sad!

[JohnnyL]

Most people objecting have probably never been in a situation where they could understand. You have to paint (and pain) it for them. Something like:

A young mother is at home with her three young ones, and two or three men break in to her house because her husband called the police on them earlier for dealing drugs and carrying guns, but they ran away before the police arrived. It will take the police 3-5 minutes to get there, and the bad men know it. If she doesn't have an assault weapon to defend against them, what will likely happen to her and her three children?

[Benjamin_LK]

As a caveat before I write anything else, I do not own any guns of any kind. Nevertheless, I do not oppose others' Constitutional rights to bear arms (of any kind).

The Connecticut shooting has been an emotional moment here in my household, especially since my wife works in an elementary school. Her comment just today was that no one needed automatic weapons. I told her it is not the weapons, but the people that fire them that are the problem. In Switzerland, for example, anyone can freely acquire ANY type of weapon, including fully automatic military grade assault rifles (there the gov't even encourages it!). Yet their homicide rates by gun violence is so low they barely track it. That tells me that the presence of such weapons are not automatically followed by violence with their usage.

The real question, in my mind, is why are people using guns to kill others? What I see is that in nearly every instance of these mass shooting are killers who have been taking anti-depressants and pain killers. If we don't get to the root of the problem, it doesn't matter if certain types of weapons are banned. The criminal and unstable elements will seek them out and use them.

It might also be helpful to point out that, for example, the Columbine killers did not possess automatic assault rifles, yet that didn't stop them from killing 15 people. Recently in China 22 students were killed by another student wielding a knife. Assault weapon bans solve nothing. It's the people (and the drugs they take) that are the problem. Killers will always search for a way to kill. What is the best way to protect ourselves from them?

Even moreso is the simple fact that society will take the blame, and not the killer. That's the corrupt part of our society in action. Rather than call the football player killing his girlfriend and baby a man of the lowest level of depravity, as probably would have happened years ago, they blame the fact that he could get a gun. There's the problem: people know that politicians and the media won't place accountability on the perpetrator, although the next life is another story.

[Ben McClintock]

now the NRA proposes a police state but "opposes" any restrictions. The enemies of freedom don't need to ban guns once they create the modern police state.

[Benjamin Harrison]

I don't agree with the NRA wanting Feds in the schools either, but I do think in this day and age the teachers should have the right to pack in school. Or have the local law enforcemnet set something up at the schools, but we don't need the feds involved to make us more into a police state as B. McClintock is saying. I say look to Israel for the answers to this one.

[Benjamin_LK]

I don't agree with the NRA wanting Feds in the schools either, but I do think in this day and age the teachers should have the right to pack in school. Or have the local law enforcemnet set something up at the schools, but we don't need the feds involved to make us more into a police state as B. McClintock is saying. I say look to Israel for the answers to this one.

What about the National Guard? I personally wonder why some haven't considered this, based on the merit of the fact that they are with the State, and States Rights, could conceivably mean more domestic defense of their schools. Just my view, anyways that we shouldn't be calling out the National Guard to fight in foreign wars as often as they sometimes are when I thought they were supposed to help maintain domestic peace as a higher priority, or as the Second Amendment would dictate, "militia"

[kshRox]

"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, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

Firearms on a par with those who would disenfranchise us of our rights, liberties and form of government are essential as The People's liberty teeth and keystone under independence . . .

[ktg]

Speaking of the assault weapons ban, "You had that for 10 years when Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in '94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it. It didn't make any difference," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre argued in an interview Sunday. "I think that is a phony piece of legislation, and I do not believe it will pass for this reason."
"At the same time, gun control advocates note that modest decreases in assault-weapon crimes were recorded during the ban. A revived version won't stop gun crime in America, but, advocates argue, it could spare some lives from the violence on America's streets, in its schools and in its homes."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12 ... apons-ban/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Americans following Satan's plan are calling for security in exchange for our rights which will cost all of us our rights without the promised security. They'll encroach on our rights every chance they get until they have a complete ban.

[Benjamin_LK]

I don't agree with the NRA wanting Feds in the schools either, but I do think in this day and age the teachers should have the right to pack in school. Or have the local law enforcemnet set something up at the schools, but we don't need the feds involved to make us more into a police state as B. McClintock is saying. I say look to Israel for the answers to this one.

What about the National Guard? I personally wonder why some haven't considered this, based on the merit of the fact that they are with the State, and States Rights, could conceivably mean more domestic defense of their schools. Just my view, anyways that we shouldn't be calling out the National Guard to fight in foreign wars as often as they sometimes are when I thought they were supposed to help maintain domestic peace as a higher priority, or as the Second Amendment would dictate, "militia"

The National Guard has become just that, NATIONAL. It is no longer a state entity, but another branch of the military. Most of them are not even local, but would be a national police force, something the conspiracy has wanted in America for the last 50 years. No thanks

Which is another problem with how the Constitution is being eroded: the National Guard is supposed to be defending and keeping order back here in the states, as a militia, and not just another branch of the military that gets casually called overseas. It was disgusting when I heard the POTUS state that the National Guard was doing well over in Afghanistan, when disasters were going on over here in the U.S.

[Seek the Truth]

Reason to have an "assault weapon".

1. When you have to be mobile and may need to engage in multiple targets.

[GeeR]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4125338260006" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[moving2zion]

B-) :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

I 2nd that motion

[jonesde]

Some arguments I've heard but haven't seen in this thread:

1. even with a single attacker, defending with a high-capacity magazine is MUCH easier and safer: the whole concept of "covering fire" to distract or temporarily silence an attacker is difficult and ineffective with smaller magazines

2. again in the context of defending even against a single attacker: in any move-and-fire or fire-from-cover situation it is really tough to hit a target, and when under stress or threat having the presence of mind to track how many shots you've fired and remembering to change your magazine is nearly impossible, meaning you're almost guaranteed to have an increased threat against your own life when you expect a "bang" and get a "click"

3. I personally own a number of firearms, but almost never carry them for self-defense purposes; the main reason I have them around is for emergencies, and during an emergency involving anything from social disorder to a foreign invasion having a higher capacity magazine allows for safety or at least survivability in a FAR wider variety of scenarios (including multiple attackers, firing for posturing for deterrence and not having to reload should you need to follow-up with deadly force, etc, etc)

4. INNOVATION! state and federal laws have severely limited innovation in firearm technology; there are lots of advanced weapons and accessories made possible by modern materials and manufacturing techniques and if they are not of interest to the military, they'll never get out of prototyping, and never be refined and perfected; one of many examples of this is highly accurate short-barrel rifles that are as portable as a piston but can be quickly adjusted to be shoulder-fired like a rifle (old designs exist for this, but newer more creative designs exist but are simply not developed); another example is better noise control without significant weight and bulk, and another is improved armor piercing and shooting through cover, and another example is explosive rounds and other projectile materials that can significantly widen the variety of scenarios a particular firearm could address

5. other "assault" style features that are banned or otherwise limited in California and would likely be banned federally include pistol grips on rifles, more generally anything like a shortened rifle that is legally a pistol where the magazine isn't in the grip, certain types of barrel attachments to compensate for muzzle rise and disperse a flash, detachable magazines (without a tool), folding and adjustable stocks, etc; these are all useful in defensive situations as well as offensive, so the idea that these features are only for offense and wouldn't turn the tide in defensive (the basis for many weapons bans) is unreasonable

[InfoWarrior82]

To protect ourselves from our own government. (Read 2nd amendment found in the constitution.)

*Hint* Says nothing about hunting or recreation.

[lundbaek]

I am finding too many people who support the idea of banning semi-auto guns and large capacity magazines. It seems they give no thought to the possibility that such might one day be essential to the protection of their life and/or property. It seems they cannot conceive of such a need. It seems they cannot conceive of tyrannical government confiscating registered guns. For that matter, most cannot believe that the drive to disarm Americans is part of the plan to disarm and submergence the U.S. into an all-powerful one-world government. These things are just inconceiveable to them. And I think more Americans will fall into that line after a few more mass shootings.

[Dr. Mindbender]

My good friend sent the following declaration for the new year. (Even though he has asked that it be disseminated far and wide, I have redacted his name for this post.):

INALIENABILITY AND LEGITIMACY



I am an active duty officer in the United States Army. I am a Judge Advocate, a military attorney. My dad’s dad was a navigator on a B-29 crew in World War II and was on Tinian Island when the Enola Gay left there to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. With the Air Force, he was later instrumental in satellite programs and what we now know as GPS. My mom’s dad was a crewmember on B-17s out of England. He married an English girl, graduated from the University of Cincinnati’s law school and eventually became a Colonel and a military appellate judge.



I earned my law degree in 2006. My wife and I have been married for 11 years. We have two daughters, one son and are expecting twin girls in March. I have never seen combat, nor have I used a firearm to defend my life or the life of another. I am indebted to those who have. Because of that debt, and my oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, I feel compelled to denounce a threat to the life, liberty and property of The People of the United States that is no less real than if Hitler and the Japanese had invaded our Eastern and Western shores simultaneously.



Every individual has the right to defend his life and liberty, by deadly force if necessary. Individuals in the aggregate, The People, have the right to secure liberty and throw off tyrannical government, by deadly force if necessary. These rights are not bestowed by government. Rather, they are superior to government systems. No legislation, executive order or judicial decision can alter these facts.

In the Declaration of Independence, the United States not only declared their independence from Great Britain, but also staked a claim to their own legitimacy. They did this relying on the principle that a government’s legitimacy comes only by the consent of the governed. In other words, we declared ourselves legitimate because We The People said we were. If that was wrong of us, it was one of the happiest mistakes, one which hundreds of nations have attempted to duplicate. However, we were not mistaken to rely on that principle, the principle of Popular Sovereignty.



Through the process of ratification, the United States Constitution became an expression of the sovereignty of The People of the United States. The Constitution is replete with clauses designed to preserve and strengthen popular sovereignty, keeping the government on a tight leash, obedient to its master. The People at large, not just the handful of drafters and promoters of the Constitution, were in fact jealous guardians of their sovereignty over the government. The People knew if the government ever forgot who was boss or failed to secure the rights of The People, then The People would be justified in throwing off, even obligated to throw off, that government and start anew. This is the essence of the Declaration of Independence and our claim to legitimacy as a nation.



Aiming to enumerate and memorialize just a few of the rights and powers of The People, both as individuals and in the aggregate, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted by The People. The second amendment declared that the right of The People to keep and bear arms was necessary to securing a free state. That this would be memorialized is no surprise; it exactly matches the concept of popular sovereignty upon which the legitimacy of our nation depends. In other words, if The People do not have the right to bear arms sufficient to throw off tyranny, then our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain was illegitimate.



It is unreasonable to believe that The People intended the second amendment only to apply to individuals in the aggregate, not to individuals themselves. In the end, however, even if The People had intended to do away with the individual’s right to self-defense, such an attempt is null and void. The right to life and liberty is an inalienable right endowed upon individuals by their creator. When a right is inalienable it means any forward-looking transaction attempting to separate the right from its owner is unenforceable and illegal. Of course, this definition does not interfere with lawful (due process) deprivations of rights of specific individuals resulting from right-forfeiting conduct. However, in the case of currently proposed legislation, it is unenforceable and illegal to try to erode or eliminate my individual right to defend my life; it is unenforceable and illegal to try to erode or eliminate the right of individuals in the aggregate to secure a free state by keeping and bearing arms.



To what logical extent can this argument be carried? As far as the individual deems it necessary to defend life; as far as The People deem it necessary to secure a free state. It is not the government’s place to tell The People that The People do not need semi-automatic rifles and 30-round magazines to keep the government in its place. The fact that the government is trying to regulate The People’s ability to keep the government in its place indicates how close The People are to being justified, even obligated, to start anew.



We The People are the ultimate arbiters of the meaning of Our Constitution. As a sworn servant to the Constitution and to the sovereignty of The People of which it is a manifestation, I declare any attempt to infringe on the right of The People to keep and bear arms to be null and void, unlawful and illegal. I declare this irrespective of laws enacted by the United States Congress, executive orders made by the President of the United States or decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. Any such law, order or decision constitutes an attempt to alienate the inalienable and is, therefore, illegitimate. Such attempts eviscerate the legitimacy of the body making the attempt. I declare those who seek to enact, enforce or validate any such law on U.S. soil to be usurpers of the sovereignty of The People and enemies to the United States Constitution. I declare any defender of the United States Constitution to be justified and duty-bound to resist any such law.



My name is Captain ______ _____. I pledge my life to preserving the liberty we have been blessed with. I would ask you to please forward this message to as many people as you know, regardless of their views. In fact, if they disagree with these views, I want them to know who I am and what I believe. I want them to know that with all my heart I would risk my life to preserve their freedoms. I ask only in return that they make themselves responsible friends to the cause of liberty and not stand idly by while the foundation is laid, with little notice, for the destruction of the best hope for freedom the world has ever known.