I’ll keep my guns thanks

So Barack Obama and many liberals want to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Has anyone thought to ask the question yet; ‘how will they take away these guns?’. OK kids, this is how they do it; they break into your house and steal them from you, and if you’re in the house they’ll probably shoot you. Does that sound much like a free country to you? No? That’s because it isn’t.

guns 11

What about all the people being murdered by guns each year! I hear you cry. Well did you know that more people are killed in road accidents each year than in gun related deaths? Should we ban cars now for being too dangerous?

guns 6

What about assault rifles! What about all the people killed by these military grade weapons! Who needs an assault rifle anyway? I hear you cry.

guns 10

Well did you know that more people were killed last year by hammers than by assault rifles? Should we ban essential tools now for being too dangerous? But who needs an assault rifle anyway right? It’s not like the government is threatening to smash down your door in the middle of the night and take them away from you. Oh wait, yes, yes they are. You see, no patriotic constitution loving American is going to part with their guns because some criminal in Washington DC decided to make an executive order to ban them. It simply isn’t going to happen. If Barack Obama is stupid enough to sign such an order, or any other of the criminals in Washington DC are foolish enough to ram through new gun restrictions, they only thing they will be successful in doing is starting a civil war.

guns 14

You see the second amendment isn’t there to allow us law abiding citizens to go duck hunting, it’s there so that we can defend ourselves from enemies both foreign and domestic. Neither the Japanese during the second world war nor the Russians during the cold war ever seriously thought about invading this country because they knew that there would be an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass.

guns 12

So the answer to the hottest question of the day about ‘who needs an assault rifle anyway’ is a resounding ‘everyone!’. If everyone had an assault rifle we’d have the lowest crime rate in the world. Don’t believe me? Why don’t you look up Switzerland. Every household in that country is required to own an assault rifle and yet it has the lowest violent crime rate on the planet. Oh, and it hasn’t been invaded for hundreds of years either. I wonder why?

To be fair to Piers Morgan, yes there were very few murders in Britain last year at the barrel of a gun, while there was a staggering number in America. But to be fair to Alex Jones, you’re right, violent crime skyrocketed in Britain after the gun ban, while violent crime has fallen significantly in America over the last decade as gun sales have only continued to grow. Traditionally America has always been more violent than Britain, but as statistics show; gun control doesn’t work. It takes the weapons out of law abiding citizens while allowing criminals to do as they please.

guns 4

Incidentally all the greatest dictators of the last century abolished gun rights and confiscated weapons before mass murdering millions of people. Just food for thought.

guns 2

Thanks for thinking that banning guns will help reduce crime, but unfortunately you’re dead wrong, its effects are the exactly opposite. If its all the same to you, I’ll keep my guns thanks. With mindless do-gooders enabling a psychopathic government to get away with whatever it wants, I might just need them to save myself from a concentration camp in the near future. Sorry, they don’t call them that anymore do they, what’s the new name? FEMA camps aren’t they?

guns 1

Sorry I won’t be going to one of those. Like many millions of Americans, I’d rather die protecting myself and my family first. And that’s what the second amendment is all about. But I’m no nut case. I’ll never pick up my guns in anger, like millions of other Americans I only keep them just in case I ever need them. I pray the liberal government and its supporters come to its senses soon because people like myself are not interested in getting into an armed conflict either here or abroad, we’re only interesting in the ability to defend ourselves in our own homes.

guns 15

But I’ll tell you what, if the government disbands the military, and officials give up their armed guards, I’ll consider giving up my firearms. But they won’t do that, they have those weapons because they understand that they’re there for their protection. Except that I and millions of other Americans have never fired our guns in anger, all the while these bureaucrats have started multiple wars and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people overseas. So who’s really the nut case?

guns 16

You have to decide, and before long you’ll have to choose a side. Because it won’t be people like me who start the conflict. I’m doing everything I can to avoid it. It’ll be the bureaucrats in Washington who start this war. They’ve gone too far, and soon enough they’ll realize it, and by then it may be too late. So if it’s all the same to you, I’ll keep my guns thanks, just in case.

guns 13

Check mate! Russia sends nukes to Cuba

Since writing this over two years ago, I have learned a lot about foreign policy. It seems that Russian propaganda has been spread far and wide throughout our own media. The US is not the aggressor I was regrettably led to believe. Indeed, in the last few months, the actions from the Russians have proven that they are indeed the aggressors, particularly after annexing the Crimea. When the US and Ally’s invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, they did not colonize or annex them. Russian aggression and propaganda needs to be watched carefully over the coming weeks and months, particularly with the tumble of the ruble. – Paul Townsend 12/18/14

I recently posted about a WWIII scenario, and of the future of warfare. How ironic, that a few minutes ago, I found multiple articles telling the story of how Russia has just sent nuclear weapons to Cuba. It sounds like something out of 1962.

Bringing the troops home, and engaging in peace talks would be far better for our relationships with other countries, than a build up of arms in the world.

After the end of the cold war, Russia began to withdraw its troops from its satellite countries, and relative peace was found around the world.

Since 9/11, the US has been on a murderous rampage across the middle east, and has created a missile defense shield in Europe.

In response to this, and to the volatility of our markets, our ignorance of debt, and our continuing violence in the middle-east. Russia has responded by deploying their troops to former soviet bases in strategic points on the globe.

President Vladimir Putin is quoted as saying:
“In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.

The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called “jump airfields.” With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles “Oak” on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this,” Putin said

This is a checkmate against the expansion of US forces in the world. To be honest, I cannot blame them for being cautious. Many people including myself, are highly suspicious of the current leaders in this country. Their actions toward our citizens, and nationals of other countries is extremely questionable.

I am praying that Ron Paul wins at the RNC later this month, and puts an end to the madness. Mitt Romney has already stated his intentions to bomb Iran, and called Russia ‘our number one geo-political foe’, this does not bode well for us. And we already know what four years of Obama has done for us.

The current issues of the day, go far beyond the elections, and even our freedoms, because as a superpower, our actions affect the entire world.

Stay informed!

The uncomfortable truth

Each day, I research different stories from a variety of sources. As I’ve stated before, I do not pay much attention to the mainstream media, as it is all agenda driven garbage. One of the independent sources that I follow is WhatReallyHappened.com . Mike Rivero does an excellent job of finding stories from many different news organizations and blogs, and displays links to them daily on his website.

Today he wrote about an uncomfortable truth about Nazi Germany, Israel, the USA and Iran, and what they all have, or do not have in common:

Here is the uncomfortable truth.

  NAZI ISRAEL USA IRAN
Invades other
countries
YES YES YES NO
Lied to justify invasion YES YES YES NO
Concentration camps YES YES YES NO
Targets a religious minority YES YES YES NO
Violates Treaties YES YES YES NO
World leader in weapons technology YES YES YES NO

The Nazis attacked and invaded other nations. So does the United States. So does Israel.Iran has not initiated a war in over 200 years.

The Nazis lied to start wars (Gliewitz). So does theUnited States (Saddam’s nukes). So does Israel (Iran’s nukes). Not having invaded anyone, Iran did not need to lie about it.

The NAZIS had slave-labor camps. The United States has a huge and growing prison-labor industry. Israel has Ansar III. Iran has no equivalent.

The NAZIs targeted a religious minority, Jews. The United States currently targets Muslims. Israel is an apartheid state. All religions live under equal protection in Iran to the point where Jews living in Iran refused a financial offer by the Israelis to relocate to Israel.

The NAZIs broke many treaties including the treaty of Versailles and the Munich agreement. The United States has violated numerous treaties including the START treaty and the NNPT. Israel violated the 1979 treaty with Egypt, and avoided violating the NNPT by refusing to sign it, even though Israel is building nuclear weapons and was exposed for trying to sell one to South Africa.

The NAZIs were renowned for their cutting edge weapons technology including the V-1 and V-2. The US makes no bones about making the most lethal (and costly) weapons on Earth. Israel has a major defense industry that develops new weapons such as Iron Dome with US subsidies, then markets them around the world.

And there is your uncomfortable truth.

Yesterday I updated my website and put my URL to good use. You can now go directly to my main site at www.abundanttruth.com which has links to different news sources, and also this blog.

Finding honest and independent news articles and blogs is a treasure in a time of deceit. I hope you find my articles interesting and thought provoking. I try to vary the subjects, and keep things fresh. My main theme throughout all my articles is to find the truth, and to encourage independent thought and support liberty throughout. Remember that independence and freedom starts from within, so always keep an open mind, and go out there and find the truth.

Guns save lives

My home country banned hand guns outright in 1997. Since then handgun crime and violent crime has skyrocketed.

This is reproduced from an article in the Times Online (UK) Sept 8th 2007. The article could be found at; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece . The content needs no comment, as it is entirely self explanatory:

Authored by Richard Munday – editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen

Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).

America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

It is very hard to buy any kind of weaponry in England; the same country which set forth the Magna Carta and protected the right to keep and bear arms many hundreds of years ago.

I once went to buy some nunchakus to play with, and I had to sign a form to let the government know that I had purchased them.

In order to buy a shotgun in England, you must take a class and obtain a ‘shotgun license’. You must also purchase an appropriate locking device to keep your gun securely locked inside your home. The local police must stop by and inspect it before you can be granted your license.

This is how far England has fallen from its original freedoms, and that is what I fear for America if we continue to ride along on the collectivist death train.

In this country I have a right to keep and bear arms, and I exercise that right. Since moving here I have acquired several firearms, and I proudly show them off to friends and family when they come to visit. I keep them clean, and take them to the firing range often.

The first gun I ever fired was a 44 magnum. I have my father-in-law to thank for that. My wife and I’s wedding was a whirlwind affair, and I did not know many people in this country. In fact; I knew no-one outside of her family. So the day before our wedding, my father-in-law took me and my dad (my family had flown in for the wedding) to the local firing range. This was his idea of a bachelor party, and considering that at this point I had never fired a handgun before, I was ecstatic. I knew from the Dirty Harry movies that the 44 Magnum had one heck of a kick to it, and that it was still one of the most powerful handguns in the world. So when we entered the range and I held the huge hunk of steel in my hands, I gripped it with all my might, so as not to get smacked in the face when the bullet discharged. I aimed it, with a tight but slightly relaxed grip; anticipating the recoil, I squeezed the trigger; BANG! The gun kicked up with a flash of flame exploding out from the barrel of the gun. I was stunned. I knew that it would have a kick, but it was like firing a shotgun or a large firework right in front of your face with your bare hands. I looked around at my father-in-law with my jaw wide open, and then at my dad with a grin starting to rip at the sides of my mouth. It was exhilarating, and I lined up for my next shot; BANG! Again the gun went off with a mammoth explosion. What a rush! After I had gone through a dozen rounds I handed the gun over to my father-in-law, who put another dozen through it, and then he gave it to my dad, who put another set through it. After that I was hooked for life.

After the better part of a year and much paperwork, I received my green-card; with this I received many of the privileges that Americans enjoy. I was also now able to purchase firearms; so long as I could prove at least six months of residency. The week after I got my green-card, I went to the same firing range to buy my first pistol. After I filled out the paperwork and gave them proof of my residency, I was told I needed to wait a couple of days so that they could run the additional checks. I returned a few days later, and everything was in order. I gave cash for my gun, and the man behind the counter slid my new firearm with its additional clip and re-loader over to me in a nice black hardened plastic box and said ‘Mr Townsend, I hope this firearm serves you well’. With a smile I said ‘thank you’, clipped the box shut and walked out of the range with a grin. I had just exercised my second amendment rights, and I felt exhilarated to do so, especially knowing that none of my friends and family back home even had the right to do so.

I now keep that firearm with me wherever I go, it has indeed served me well. I hope I never have to use it in self defense, but it is there if I should ever need it, and my sovereign rights as an individual shall never be infringed.

Firearms are an important part of freedom. Aside from being a useful deterrent against would-be aggressors, they are also a fun sport to take part in.

Depending on what statistics you read:

Half of all US citizens exercise their rights to own firearms and protect themselves. Indeed, the more people that own guns, the lower the crime rate:

Gun sales up, crime down

As Judge Alex Kozinski accurately stated; ‘the second amendment is a doomsday provision’. It protects individuals from all enemies foreign and domestic. It lets the government know that you the individuals are in charge, and stops the rise of powers such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, which striped their citizens of the right to bear arms before stripping them of their rights and lives altogether.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341- 42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble. All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust,to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here.

See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99.

If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the light of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: 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.

The whole time we have guns, we cannot be taken over by government, and no invading country can ever dominate us. Just take a look at Switzerland, for hundreds of years they have never been invaded because every man is required to own a gun. They also have the lowest crime rate in the entire world.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by The Bill of Rights, second amendment:

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.

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

So long as our gun owning rights are not infringed, we will continue to live in a free country, because a gun owning country cannot be ruled over without revolt. It is our god given right to keep and bear arms, and we are the masters of our own domains so long as we do so.

History has shown that a free and law abiding society that owns guns will always be safer than a society striped of its rights to do so. Let us never fall into the same trap that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia fell into. Let us always defend our right to bear arms, and defend our own peace and prosperity. Let us not give criminals the upper hand with gun control laws. Let us carry our guns so that we might protect ourselves if our own sovereignty is challenged.

Throughout history, especially in the 20th century, those law abiding citizens that have kept guns have been proven to save lives.