An open message to firearm owners "on the fence" regarding an "Assault Weapons" ban:

[CoMF]

The call to ban so-called "assault weapons" is not about "common sense." It's not about determining whether or not a "genuine need" for owning a military-pattern semi-auto rifle exists. It's about creating a precedent for increasingly restrictive regulations which will, inevitably, reach "sportsmen."

British Want Their Guns Back

Now, in the interest of fairness, the "hunting" referred to in the beginning of the video is not with a firearm but with hunting dogs; i.e. fox hunting. The point is not to draw comparisons between the two but to demonstrate that long-held "traditions" are not sacrosanct in the eyes of a government that has already banned firearms for anything other than "sporting" purposes. (Fox hunting was "officially" banned on February 15, 2005.)

Do you feel it unlikely that a Congress who has succeeded in banning these firearms would never attempt to pass legislation that places restrictions on hunting in the name of "animal welfare" or "protecting wildlife"? If there were a stigma placed upon hunters by the media in the form of national scorn, contempt and ridicule, would you tolerate it? Would you not expect intelligent, well-reasoned individuals to act as your advocates in the face of vicious persecution and ludicrosity?

Hang together lest we all hang seperately. You may not feel that these firearms are "necessary," and I don't expect you to, but at least acknowledge that allowing these bans to take hold will lead to more and more restrictions. They may not happen tomorrow, or a year from now, or in your generation, but if the experiences of citizens in other nations is any indication, the supporters of such legislation will never be satisfied until the lawful private ownership of firearms is rendered nonexistant.

[Jamie]

Whether or not an 'assault weapon', (if any of these 'idiots' could explain what one is), is necessary has nothing to do with it. Does anyone actually 'need' a big screen TV, granite counter tops, 50' pleasure boat, Infinity sports car? A semi-automatic rifle has been around for a LONG time. Just because some mentally deranged person gets a hold of one and kill with it doesn't make the gun the problem. If so, why isn't texting while driving banned nationally? Why are we still allowed to have knives? Diesel fuel and fertilizer make great bombs. Why is alcohol still legal? Diane Feinstein should be the one to decide how many rounds of ammunition should be carried in a gun because HER 357 magnum carries 6, that's enough?

[ladder13]

There is no fence, if you're not with us, you're with them.

[Damn Yankee]

There are some who are trying to do something.

* Pennsylvania Police Chief Proposes ’2nd Amendment Preservation’ Ordinance Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[dchapma1]

I'm moving there!

[CoMF]

Originally Posted by dchapma1

I'm moving there!

To PA you mean? Interestingly enough, PA's state constitution affirms the civil right to own a firearm.

[Buffalohunter60]

The second ammendment was written for "we the people" to protect us from a brutal government. "We the people" will not allow our secondment to be changes...peroid. That is the first step to government controlling the people and we do not want to go down that road. You do not have to look far to see what can and has happened to a defenceless population. Look ar Sierra Leone and what happened there in 2000......I know we think it can never happen here....and I bet the German people thought the same thing. "On one can take our freedom....we have to be willing to give it up.....I am not willing and will refuse to do that. I will not acknowledge any change to the second ammendment by Government. That is like allowing the fox to guard the hen house....unacceptable. These are our rights and our freedom is at stake....we must stand together and stand strong against any attempt to change our constitutional rights. I pledge alligence to the Flag of the United States of America and to the "Republic" for which it stands......there is a difference between a democracy and a Republic. They have removed the pledge of alligence from most schools but I remember it well.

[Buffalohunter60]

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]


The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

We are a Republic and the "Majority" can not take away our constitutional rights even if we are a minority...stand strong men and never allow anyone to take our freedom. The second ammendment is precious and the bill of rights. I accept no changes to our second ammendment and I will dis-regard any change to my constitutional rights under a Republic. I said the pleg of alligence thousands of times when I went to school and still believe in it. Seems like some of our senators need to understand our constitution better. It is clear as day to me.