When To Take Up Arms

Also posted on the Des Moines Register. 
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3f34b79ab36e473b90b73f230ce4f950&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a3f34b79ab36e473b90b73f230ce4f950Post%3abd4ce901-363b-42af-8dab-7891e8357a01&sid=sitelife.desmoinesregister.com



From my Frien Skip Coryell.




http://www.examiner.com/x-18561-Grand-Rapids-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d26-When-Do-You-Take-up-Arms





Yesterday I was teaching a concealed carry class and I heard myself say "Most people, whether they realize it or not, have a point where they will take another human life." Many times I've run across people who tell me they don't believe in violence and some even say they couldn't hurt another person to save their own lives. I'm not sure I believe some of them. Personally, anyone who tries to hurt me or my family, their life is forfeit.

And then I got to thinking along the same vein, what with all the stuff going down in our country right now, all the changes, all the uncertainty, with the downward spiral into socialism, and I wonder... Is there a point where I would take up arms in a violent revolt against my government?



Sometimes I wonder the same thing. One of my favorite quotes is from the Declaration of Independance.



"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."



When is our government going to be considered "destructive" enough. When the succeed in making a socialist third world backwater. Because sometimes it seems that is where we are headed. When do we replace the current government with one of the people. The government we have hasn't been for the people in a long time. They are the puppets of the special interests and the big money. Just try to unseat a incumbant Senator. They have to really screww up and the opponent has to have one hell of a war chest.



More from skip:



As Second Amendment activists we understand that the Second Amendment is the one right that protects all others, and when it is gone, then nothing remains to protect our freedom. As I travel around the country on behalf of the Second Amendment March, I speak with various people of all different backgrounds, and no matter where I'm at, someone always makes this statement: "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!" Obviously, that's the statement made famous by Charleton Heston. Somehow, it sounded more potent when he said it.







Nonetheless, people are thinking it and people are saying it. Is it all talk? Some say yes, but I don't think so. I believe there is a growing number of citizens out there who are willing to give up their lives to regain the next generation of freedom. Case in point, I was doing a radio interview several months back and I was grilled for two hours by callers. They were upset with me because I was organizing a Second Amendment March on Washington DC. Their biggest complaint? "Why are you marching on Washington DC "without" guns?"

I tried to explain to them that we weren't at that point yet, that there was still hope for the ballot box, but they would have no part of it. In their minds, we were already at the point of no return. Are they right? History will some day tell the whole story. But I pray to God they are wrong. But, just in case, I think it's time all of us started thinking long and hard over the questions: "At what point are you willing to take up arms against a tyrannical government? Where is the point of no return?”





He sure knows how to give us plenty to think about. Right now, we are in the soapbox stage. It's time to find honest people to run for office and stand with them. We have just a little over a year till the next election. I know there are people out there that would serve with honor and distinction. We need to find them and get them elected. That takes us up to the Ballot box. We need to vote.And we need to vote for people that belive that the Constitution means what it says. Not some liberal defenition of what they want it to mean for their own purposes.

It doesn't help that we have the most anti-gun administration ever elected. David Codrea gave us this:







http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d26-Barr-calls-UN-gun-treaty-perfect-storm?#comments





Barr calls UN gun treaty 'perfect storm'

October 26, 10:09 AMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea







Former Georgia congressman Bob Barr says international gun controllers "are now on the brink of success." He's referring to the Arms Trade Treaty endorsed earlier this month by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.



"It was not always thus," Barr writes. From “'Perfect Storm' For UN Gun Control Agenda":



"In one of his first public addresses after being sworn in as undersecretary, [John] Bolton delivered the opening statement for the United States at the UN arms conference on July 9, 2001. His blunt words shocked many of the delegates present. The message he delivered made crystal clear, with reference to our constitutionally-guaranteed “right to keep and bear arms,” that the US would not be a party to any international effort that would directly or indirectly infringe that fundamental right."





"We have a president, a secretary of state, and an undersecretary philosophically in synch with the UN... Clinton made not even passing or indirect reference to the Constitution, much less the Second Amendment; a position so clearly and forcefully employed by Bolton when defending our interests against the international “community.”"















Hillary Clinton's State Department reanimates global arms treaty







No sooner do we get done talking about one international "gun control" effort than another resurrects itself, or I should say, is dug up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. From Reuters:



The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.



The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.













Here's the State Department press release. It contains a caveat:



As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations.



The rabid gungrabbers at Oxfam International don't like the idea of consensus one bit. Of course, if they supported choice, they wouldn't be rabid gungrabbers:



Governments must resist any US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause.



Hillary wants the U.S. to endorse and ratify this treaty. The Useless Nations wants control of our country and Clinton the TRAITOR wants to give it to them. The only thing stopping it right now is the required 2/3 majority vote in the Senete. There are those that would vote for it. And there are those that know that a vote for something like this is sure death for their politicak careers.



David wrote years ago:





"The Bill of Rights is the benchmark of freedom. Its authors were the innovators, pioneers and leaders in mankind's quest for liberty. Heeding their wisdom made our nation a beacon to the rest of the world, "the shining city on the hill." Disregarding it, trying to emulate the rest of the world, is the downward path to misery. Our system requires consent of the governed, not consent of the masters. Our "progun" leaders, consorting with CEOs, politicians and diplomats, need to understand this, along with our resolve to defy standardizing rights endowed by our Creator to a global norm".





We are supposed to be the "Beacon" to the rest of the world. They are supossed to want to be free like we are. What happened along the way that we are willing to give up our freedom?

Even Obama is getting in on it.





http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d17-Obama-using-treaties-with-foreign-powers-to-enact-domestic-gun-control







IANSA is the official coordinator of non-governmental organizations’ involvement in the UN small arms process. Its sources of funding include the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute.



It's director, Rebecca Peters, isn't satisfied with just regulating guns:



She also raised the gun prohibition specter explicitly, recommending the outright prohibition of semi-automatic and automatic rifles and declaring that “(M)any States already prohibit the civilian possession of light weapons, and this should be recognised in the paragraph devoted to light weapons control.”









So far, it looks like the UN Protocol has stalled. For now. If there's one thing we've learned from the gun grabbers, it's they're like salivating weasels trying to get into a chicken coop. If one entry is blocked, they'll try to nose out another.



Which is why Barack Obama's pledge on Thursday during his Mexican trip to...well here. I'll let The Washington Post tell you:

Obama announced that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms-trafficking treaty.



http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d15-Globalists-use-Mexican-crimeand-a-lieas-excuse-to-ban-US-guns











Mexico groups urges new US assault weapons ban":

The United States should reinstate a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons to prevent such guns from reaching Mexican drug cartels, former officials from both countries said in a report released Tuesday...



"Improving our efforts ... will weaken the drug cartels and disrupt their illegal activities, and make it easier ultimately to dismantle and destroy them," said Robert Bonner, co-chairman of the group and former head of both the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Customs and Border Protection agency.



OK, so what about Bonner's Super Friends group, the "Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexico Border"? They're part of The Pacific Council on International Policy.









The principal cause of worsening security conditions is a massive, illegal trade in drugs and arms. The U.S. has traditionally emphasized the former, whereas Mexican authorities have focused on stopping the southward flow of high-powered automatic weapons and ammunition. In reality, this two-way flow of contraband is mutually reinforcing, as drug traffickers need guns to protect their illegal trade and criminal networks are among the main purchasers of arms and ammunition in the border region...



Well, there you have it—they trip right out of the starting gate. No "high-powered automatic weapons" were involved in the Clinton gun ban. That people think they were is a calculated lie used to deceive them into supporting a ban on semiautomatic firearms.



Gee, globalists spreading lies to enact gun bans. And the "Authorized Journalist" establishment media is acting as their press agent.



Imagine that.







Why would you assume anyone who wants to see you disarmed is your friend? And why would you assume anyone who has to lie to accomplish this end is not your enemy?





People will say "it can't happen here". Don't be so sure. The people of Austrailia turned in all of their weapons after the government outlawed them. There are a lot of gun owners in this country that would do the same thing. There are so many sheep in this country, blindly listening to the government that they will do what ever they are told. People tell me I'm paranoid. I'm not. The government may outlaw guns, but that doesn't mean I will have any to turn in. Gee officer, they were stolen last night while we were out. If it can happen in the UK and Austrailia, why take a chance it can't happen here. Anyone that doesn't know by now that all politicians are liars are just deluding themselves. They will say anything to get and maintain their power. One example close to home, our own Senator Harkin. He spouts how he's a hunter and will protect our right to hunt. Excuse me Senator, I have read the Constitution and the word "hunting" is not in there. He votes for every gun control bill that comes along. Politicians may lie, but voting records don't. Yet, he keeps getting re-elected every time. I thought the people in Iowa were smarter than that.

Special thanks to Skip Coryell and David Codrea.