Some Definitions:

Some Definitions:

Civil War:
A war between factions in the same country

Rebellion:
Organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another

Revolution:
The overthrow of a government by those who are governed

Secede:
To split from or to withdraw from membership of a political union, an alliance or an organization

Secession:
Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity.

Daniel Miller's Short Take On Texas Secession

Daniel Miller's Short Take On Texas Secession

Quote:

Although I could talk about governmental theory and the social contract, I want to start by giving you an analogy. Imagine for a moment that you are married. Not a stretch for some of you since you are married or have been in the past. Now imagine that your spouse had done the following: - Taken your paycheck and spent it on drugs to the point of running you into serious debt - Rendered you and your children financially strapped to the point of financial ruin - Taken your money and given it to your neighbor so that "we can be friends" - Actively worked to turn your kids into "abusive" clones and against you - Ran up gambling debts that you and your children had to pay - Repeatedly cheated on you but promised that the next time would be different - Made decisions for you that were detrimental without your agreement - Put a second, third or fourth mortgage on your home without your consent - Promised that they were placing money into your retirement but they were really spending it on frivolous items which would render you destitute at retirement - Refused to put locks on the door even when your house has been broken into, your property stolen and you have been raped repeatedly - Failed to come to your aid when you were injured or sick - Became domineering and controlling to the point of obsession - Refused to let you speak your mind about these problems and when you did labeled you as "unstable" and "fringe" - Threatened to beat or kill you if you ever leave What would you want to do in this situation? If you said anything short of "divorce" please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233). But did you catch that? D-I-V-O-R-C-E! Divorce and secession are the exact same thing.

A very interesting read.

Is it 1860 again?

The war that Lincoln began was over many things. Slavery was but 1 part, and we've debated that a lot. Ironically much back in 04/05 when I first posted my articles on secession.

This time around however, slavery is not a factor.

Interestingly enough though, many of the same reasons that launched both the American Revolution and the War of Southern Independence are with us again.

We've buried the lessons of history, we've rewritten tyrants and butchers like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan into heroes, we've allowed the Heirs of Hamilton their dream of a large and powerful Central government, to the detriment of We The People. We proclaim Washington, Madison and Jefferson "outdated" and "not applicable" as out non-representatives in Washington sell out our grandchildren's grandchildren to save their incompetent financial backers from ruin.

More than half the country is starting to wake up, people are taking to the streets, and things are in motion. Their outcome, uncertain. Is a sleeping giant again awakening, to reclaim their country and return us to a path we should never have left, or is this just another false alarm, and will snooze be hit again, as we are further disarmed, subjugated, and made dependent on the hind tit of a decomposing dead carcass painted red, white and blue?

United States? Ummm.....I don't think so.

List of states with sovereignty motions in play a of now:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...y-resolutions/

1. Wisconsin
2. Illinois
3. West Virginia
4. North Carolina
5. North Dakota (passed house 52-40 on 04-07-09) (passed senate 25-20 on 04-20-09 - returned to house, amended)
6. Ohio
7. Nevada (Committee 04-11-09: “No Further Action Allowed”)
8. Oregon
9. Alabama (2nd Resolution, HJR403, introduced 03-24-09)
10. Mississippi (senate resolution introduced 03-10-09)
11. Pennsylvania (senate resolution introduced 03-19-09)
12. Idaho (Passed House 51-17, on 03-23-09, Passed Senate on 04-07-09)
13. New Mexico (tabled in committee)
14. South Dakota (passed house on 03-03-09 by a vote of 51-18, passed senate on 03-05-09 by a vote of 20-14)
15. Virginia
16. Kentucky (2nd resolution introduced on 02/24)
17. Alaska (2nd resolution introduced 03-19-09) (HJR27 Passed 37-0 on 04-06-09) (Senate Passed HJR27, 19-0, on 04-19-09 - Awaiting Transmittal to Governor)
18. Indiana (2nd Senate Resolution Introduced 03-19-09) (SR0042 Passed Committe 8-0 on 04-01-09) (SR0042 Passed Senate 44-3 on 04-09-09)
19. Tennessee
20. Arkansas (failed in committee on 03-04-09 passed committee 04-01-09
21. Minnesota
22. South Carolina (passed house on 02-26-09, senate - referred to subcommittee)
23. Georgia (Senate Version - Passed 43-1 on 04/01/09)
24. Kansas
25. Texas (senate resolution introduced 03-02-09 - senate’s 2nd resolution introduced on 03-04-09)
26. New Hampshire (resolution killed in house on 03-04-09: 216-150)
27. Missouri
28. Iowa
29. Montana (Failed 51-49 on 02-24-09) (Resolution reintroduced as HR3) (HR3 Passed House Committee on 04-21-09)
30. Michigan (senate version introduced 03-03-09)
31. Arizona
32. Washington
33. Oklahoma (passed house on 02/18/09, senate version passed 25-17 on 03-04-09) (Joint version passed Senate, 29-18 on 04-15-09 - awaiting signuture of governor) Failed House vote, 54-34)

Sounds like "We The People" are waking up an deciding that an out of control and out of touch "Elite" needs a reminder on the Constitution and the real limits to their powers. About fucking time America.
About. Fucking. Time.

Can Texas Really Secede?

Can Texas Really Secede?

That's the question floating around now that Texas Gov.

Neither the US Constitution nor the Texas Constitution specifically mention any way to separate.

The Texas Constitution says this about Texas and the US.

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

This would seem to indicate that Texas consideres itself a partner with the United States, not a subservient section of it.

Now, we've established in the past (see below) that secession is legal despite the outcome of Mr. Lincoln's Illegal War and the forced at gunpoint readmission of the states that supposedly never left (How do you reenter end you never left?).

So, my take on this matter is, if Texas decides to secede, it will. A motion will possibly go to the state government, be passed onto the people to decide, and the "Will of the People" followed. Of course, there are economic, political and social matters to consider. This isn't something to do lightly, nor quickly. Care must be used, and if a division occurs, it should be peaceful, to maintain good relations between the 2. Both sides must be aware that we have enemies who will use such an event to their advantage, and our disadvantage. In the eyes of many, even if we divide, we are all the same to them.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a motion to consider the option put forth on this years ballot, so that the public's opinion could be weighed. A large number calling for consideration could carry as much weight if not more that actually doing it, and accomplish much of the same goals, while not rushing into something hastily.



Here's some related links.
The idea of Secession.
Chuck Norris Talks Secession (not recession)
Revisiting the Past : Part 1 - An examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Part 2 - The Road to War : Causes
Revisiting the Past : Part 3 - An re-examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Pt 4 - The Institution of Slavery, cause for war. - Bob Hubbard

Michael Badnarik Quote

I am a very peaceful man. I love people and am known for my gregarious personality. However, if you try to confiscate my guns, I will feel compelled to give them to you, one bullet at a time.

• Source: Good to be King (2004)

Michael Badnarik Quote

The question is: How bad do things have to get before you will do something about it? Where is your line in the sand? If you don't enforce the constitutional limitations on your government very soon, you are likely to find out what World War III will be like. I'm quite sure that I will never experience that war - because dissidents are always the first to be eliminated.

• Source: Good to be King (2004)

What's All That Secession Ruckus in Texas?

It was the shout-out heard around the world: Texas' Republican Gov. Rick Perry's praise for his state's tea party protesters, accompanied by not-so-veiled references to a potential Lone Star State secession

Thomas Paine on to Washington

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le2OnDKqj3g

Texas continues to hint Secession.

Texas continues to hint Secession.

Recently martial arts expert and actor Chuck Norris said in a few interviews that he's willing to take up the mantle as President of the Republic of Texas, should Texas decide it's had enough of Washington's continued defecating on the US Constitution and leave.

On April 15th, Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

When Texas entered the union in 1845 there was an understanding it could pull out at a later time if it decided to. However when it did secede in 1861, is was forced back into the Union by force of arms. Currently, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.

The debate over the legality of secession has been ongoing as nothing within the US Constitution specifically states that a member State can not do this, indicating it is a valid option.

Texas has a history of being a very independent and freedom loving place. Concerns over the US Economy, the continued mortgaging of our future to bail out failing businesses and saddling taxpayers with mounting debt, as well as serious concern over Federal abuse of the Second Amendment and rumors of mandatory gun registration and confiscation, are pushing the people of Texas towards a hard choice.

If it happens, I doubt it will be a peaceful exit.

Bob Barr on Gun Control

April 2nd, 2009 | No Comments »

Bob Barr published the following article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Gun-control crowd pushes radical goal

by Bob Barr, April 1, 2009

As the little girl in the 1980s flick, “Poltergeist,” said, “They’re back.” Now, after consciously maintaining a low profile the last two years, even though the Democratic Party maintained a majority in both houses of the Congress, the gun-control crowd is stirring. Yes, they’re back. And they’re feeling their oats.

Smartly, congressional benefactors for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s most notorious gun control organization, had lain low; and gun control was but a minor issue in then-Sen. Obama’s campaign for the White House.

Read the full article here.

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

1930's & 1940's

Quote:

Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin. Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938. Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents. ... In 1941, U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson called on Congress to enact national registration of all firearms.8 Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to protect the Second Amendment. Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka."9 Rep. John W. Patman added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves. . . ."10

Source: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...tist/id14.html

2000
CALIFORNIA ORDERS STATE-WIDE CONFISCATION



Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies

Quote:

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph) In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions. On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed. "Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999) Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson) More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)

________

Chuck Norris For President.....Of Texas?

Quote:

On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, "I may run for president of Texas." That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state. From the East Coast to the "Left Coast," America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government.

Full Article

You've got my vote Chuck.

You Evil Militiaman You!

So, the brain trust that's the Missouri Information Analysis Center recently came to this stunning conclusion:

Quote:

"Militia members most commonly associate with third-party political groups," said the report, issued Feb. 20 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr."

So, if you know your rights, support the guys you support getting government off your ass and back to what another evil terrorist named Thomas Jefferson espoused, you're likely in a domestic terrorist cell.

Riiiight!

Lets just wave the flag and bleet our obedience to whichever clone or clown is in the big seat and do what they say.

Sorry. No.

I choose to hold law enforcement officials to the law that they are supposed to represent.
I choose to hole elected officials to their oaths, and to the law they are supposed to represent.
I choose to know my rights, my privileges, the difference between them, and weither you like it or not, hold LEO and EO accountable when they purposefully or ignorantly try to violate them.
I choose to support and will continue to support those seeking office who agree with those ideas.
I choose to support the idea of a small government that isn't so paranoid it needs to see my "papers" before I take a crap, or that having a couple bucks isn't "wrong".

Guess that makes me a suspicious person, possibly even a "terrorist" to some.

Yes folks, thinking is a crime I guess.

What a sorry condition for the nation that Washington and Jefferson and Franklin gave so much for. They would weep if they could see how far we've fallen.

Got Cash? These Nice Men Vould Like To Make You Talk.

Seems a Ron Paul campaign worker was detained by the TSA recently. He was a "suspicious person" because he was carrying $4,700 in cash. Yes, having large amounts of money on you is now grounds for detainment and interrogation.

Welcome to 1984 Komerades.

Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/tsa_harasses_traveler_for_carr.php

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=14907

http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/tsa-caught-being-bullies/7034


Washington Times News Article
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...on-paul-group/

Obama’s promises falling by the wayside

Obama’s promises falling by the wayside

---

Quote:

become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery.

Sounds very FDR-like. I remember someone here saying something like this a while back, but he got told he was wrong. I wonder who that was.......

Quote:

What do I think of Obama? FDR 2.0 with recovery delayed decades due to mismanagement, wrong effort, and training people to be dependants, not independants.

Quote:

I see Obama as a modern day Teddy Roosevelt, just more sane. Teddy, for those who aren''t familiar, did whatever he wanted, including signing treaties with other nations, years before Congress caught up to him and actually made it all legal. I see him as a modern FDR, in that he'll "save" us from Depression, by nationalizing everything possible, and making his Socialist party buddies proud (even though they say he isn't one of them, and he's ah, misplaced, his membership card and lifetime pledge of loyalty to them).

Quote:

If they go the FDR route, look for the continued loss of private sector businesses, with bloated federal programs replacing them, further delaying recovery.

Why what you the voter want doesn't really matter.

See here for background
Seven upstate Democrats reject all 9 state budget bills

Some key bits:

What’s going on? Why would so many Democrats buck their leadership on such a crucial matter?

One answer is because Democrats control the Assembly with a highly secure 109-41 margin, leaving plenty of wiggle room to let some members avoid making a politically uncomfortable vote without affecting the overall outcome of a bill the leadership wants passed.

Yes, they can say no, while being assured they, and not we the voters get what we want.

But why? Don't our elected officials work for us?

Hardly.

For those senators, it’s not an easy choice: risk alienating an unknown number of voters back home or a known number of Democratic leaders in Albany with the power to end political careers. But all the Senate Democrats are sticking together to approve the budget.

Yup. Better to piss off us voters, who will forget about this mess in a few months because we have a short attention span, and are too stupid to actually look things up, remember, and look at third party candidates, for most career politician's to worry about.

Wake up NY, and America. Before it's really too late to retake your government.

Obama Bash-a-mania is running Wild!

Hey, did you hear? President Obama told a cripple joke on tv. How Dare He!!!!!
Oh, did you hear? He Bowed, he actually bowed, averted his eyes and everything while meeting the King of Saudi Arabia. Conclusive proof he's a muslim!!!!!
Did you see? Mrs. Obama hugged the Queen of England!!!! SCANDAL!!!!!!!

And so on.

What next? Headline news about the spinach stuck in his teeth? One of his kids farts in public? He had some dog hair on his suit while meeting the PM of BM?

Give me a break.

Never mind the dumb asses running around screaming about "Where's the Change!!!!!". Bush hasn't even finished unpacking in Texas yet, and everyone is screaming that his successor hasn't waved his hands and undone 16 years of government screwups.

Never mind they keep failing to remember Obama isn't our fracking King, that there are 100 other screwups in Congress and over 500 screwups in the House, adding to the current mess.

Please.

I don't like Obama any more than anyone else who voted against him, and I certainly would have prefered someone else at the top, preferably Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, but really.

It's not fair to blame him for all this mess. He inherited a developing mess, he wasn't involved in much of it's creation, and the parts he as a Senator was involved in, well, he had help.

Put the blame where it belongs.

The idea of Secession.

So, Chuck Norris has said if Texas secedes from the US, he'll be up for running it.

OK. I'm game.

All I ask is, please wait until I can move there so I don't have to deal with customs.

Here's some related links.
Chuck Norris Talks Secession (not recession)
Revisiting the Past : Part 1 - An examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Part 2 - The Road to War : Causes
Revisiting the Past : Part 3 - An re-examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Pt 4 - The Institution of Slavery, cause for war. - Bob Hubbard

The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard

The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard

---

The Myth that Gun Control is Good
By Bob Hubbard


You've seen it on the news. Another celebrity wants to ban guns, because they are evil. You don't hear that their body guard is carrying however.

The anti-gun crowd loudly proclaims that only by making guns illegal, can we be safe.

Ask them why cities with gun bans have the highest crime rates however, and they fall silent.

Ask them why cities with easy gun laws have the lowest crime rates, and they change the subject.

Now, before we begin this examination of the issue, let me state for the record I am anti-gun. If it were possible to eliminate every gun on the planet, I'd be quite happy to see them go. But that genie is out of the bottle, and will never go back in. Guns are here and they are here to stay. With that said, lets look at some gun myths.

Myth 1 - More restrictive laws will result in less guns in the hands of criminals.

False.

Any politician who pushes this idea is either an idiot or an incompetent, or both. Criminals don't care about the law, that's why they are criminals. All restrictive laws do is keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

Myth 2 - Hard gun laws make cities safer.

False.

Hard gun laws ensure that law abiding citizens are defenseless. As #1 established, criminals don't care. Cities such as Washington and Chicago that have gun bans have some of the highest homicide rates in the US. By comparison, the state of Vermont who has the most lax gun laws in the nation, also ranks last on federal crime statistics. If easy access to guns results in high crime, how can you explain this?

The bottom line here is, heavy gun laws result in a less safe society, as the only people who have guns there are police and criminals.

Myth 3 - Gun Ownership is not really guaranteed.

False.

In the early days of out nation, our founding fathers wrote specific guidelines to allow citizens ownership of guns through the Second Amendment.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Some choose to interpret this to mean it's about the militias, but that's not the case. If it were, there wouldn't be a specific section for the militias in Article 1, Section 8.

Some say it's about the state, but if that were true, the founders would have said "state" not "people". They were precise in their wording of this document. An earlier draft by Madison said "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

There is of course the question of "A well regulated Militia". Regulated by whom? Again, the intent wasn't government law, but the idea of regular training and practice, which was writen about in Federalist #29 by Hamilton.

Myth 4 - Guns in schools makes them less safe.

False.

Take the Columbine Colorado tragedy as an example. Two armed gunmen were able to move around the school freely, without worry of reprisal, inflicting massive casualties, due to being the only ones armed there.

Contrast that with the Appalachia College of Law school shooting, where the gunman was subdued after 2 armed students confronted him.

If the teachers at Columbine had been armed, it's possible that the body count might have been much lower.

Myth 5 - Gun Control Advocates are practice what they preach.
False.

• Rosie O'Donnell, who supports the Million Mom March reportedly keeps armed body guards on staff to protect her family.
• Diane Feinstein, one of the biggest opponents of gun ownership in Congress, has an unrestricted concealed weapons permit.
• Senators Chuck Schumer another Congressional opponent of gun ownership also has a concealed carry permit. In fact, Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City.
• Carl Rowan, who often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, a fierce gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Dig deep enough into the backgrounds of the gun control group and you'll find many more who don't measure up to the limits they would impose on others. Why if they are so opposed to this, would they arm themselves? Is it for their own safety, or is it that they want to be the ones with the guns?

Myth 6 - Gun Laws are for your protection.

False.

It's proven that gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals will obtain guns and use them regardless of how many laws there are, and there are quite a few on the books, hundreds in fact. Cities and states with heavy regulation have the highest crime rates in the nation. This simple fact is ignored repeatedly by law makers.

Gun laws exist for one reason. To restrict gun access for law abiding citizens.

Remember, the British Army was on it's way to confiscate the colonists weapons when they were fired upon. A disarmed population is easier to control. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they wrote protections into the law allowing civilian gun ownership. This was done specifically to allow the citizens a means of defense against both criminal and oppressive government. In a city where the law is restrictive, criminals know you're probably unarmed. Easy prey. Where you are allowed, and sometimes even required to arm yourself, crime is low because the prey isn't so easy.


A read of this might seem to indicate that I support repealing all gun regulations. I don't. I believe that some laws are in fact necessary. Criminals shouldn't be allowed to have them, their misuse should be punished, etc. Responsible and Educated gun ownership, not repressive and restrictive laws is the answer in my opinion.

Resources:

• Michael Badnarik - Good to be the King - Cptr 16 pg105-109
• Thomas E. Woods Jr. PHD. - The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History - Cptr 3, Pg22-24

Web Resources

• Million Mom March : http://www.millionmommarch.org/aboutus/
• US Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net
• Federal Crime Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
• Appalachia College of Law school shooting : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting
• Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat by Jim Kouri, CPP http://www.houseconservatives.com/bl...ein-pack-heat/
  

====

Bob Hubbard is the CEO of SilverStar WebDesigns Inc, a web design and hosting company specializing in martial arts sites, as well as an administrator on the popular martial arts communities MartialTalk.com, Kenpotalk.com and FMATalk.com. He is also a respected professional photographer specializing in martial arts event, nature and portrait photography. His martial arts photography can be found there as well as at his martial arts photography web site, martialphotos.com. He may be reached through these sites.
Copyright © 2008 - Bob Hubbard - All Rights Reserved
Permission is granted to reprint this article on websites, blogs and ezines provided all text, links and authors bio is left intact.