Monday, January 28, 2013

 Firearms Refresher Course

1. Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. 

2. Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither. 

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The Constitution of United States © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment exists in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

I love this country, it's the government I fear.


Comments unrelated to the material presented in each daily post will be summarily deleted, UNLESS I, myself, find them of potential value to others and particular interest to me, personally.

~ FreeThinke


  1. F Thinke Man, it seems that the Progressives, Democrats, and liberals seem to find you very amusing, I say, show me a Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains! When logical people can't discuss their views without attacking the other side, then you know they've lost the war of ideas. So I guess than means NO freebees for you!
    In my humble opinion, I think that you're cool dude, but you’re going to have to learn if you want to get along with the Progressives, Democrats, and liberals, your going to have to play it their way or no way!

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. ...oh wait, the government FAILED at even THAT simple task with Obama.

  4. "If you want to get along with the Progressives, Democrats, and liberals, your going to have to play it their way or no way!"

    There's some truth to that, Anon, and that is precisely why I vigorously exercise MY constitutional right to oppose in no uncertain terms the growing list of "taboos" the Marxian-Communist-Socialist-Fabian- Progressive-Liberal-Statist-Collectivists-DemonRat coalition would impose on us.

    I cannot let my personal liking -- even love -- for any number of liberals stop me from telling the Truth -- as I understand it.

    I take inspiration from "Desiderata," especially these two lines:

    "As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons."

    "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story."

    That's not bad advice.

  5. Let me ask you, how can you "Love" Liberals when they are so hateful?
    I've thought about this a great deal, mainly because of the fact that I have many friends and family members who are Liberal’s, and I would love to hold a meaningful conversation with them but I know that if I did it would end our relationship as this has happened before in the past. So I just hold my temper when they spout off their brain-washed koolaide- drinking crap.
    I have found that even people who I thought were somewhat logical think their life, and happiness depends on restricting MY liberties and controlling MY life . And if that is not the thinking of a Socialist, then I don’t know what is. They just can't stand to have their opinions challenged.
    I have read the hateful leftist, progressive blogs on these boards where they lambast us conservatives and call us those disgusting names only because we dare to challenge their way of thinking. And I have recently seen this happen to you as well. As recently as 4 years ago (coincidentally since Obama was first elected) we have seem so much of our American way of life restricted, changed, and controlled, and not by choice. And this bothers the heck out of me. If this is not the “path to Socialism” then I don’t know what is. And what kills me is that the President, Congress, and the Senate exempt themselves from all the rules, regulations, and laws they pass and shoved down our throats! Soon our First Lady will be banning us and our children from enjoying a hamburger at Mickey D’s and that my good friend is very, very, dangerous.

    We already get a glimpse of things to come when we sat Madam Hillary Rodham Clinton give that feisty “What difference does it make!?” in your face testimony at the Benghazi hearings. And that love fest interview with the two of them sitting side by side. Looked to me as if Obama was warming up a seat for her a seat on the Supreme Court.

  6. Nice list. Remember back when liberals used to mistrust government?

  7. The Second Amendment exists in case the politicians ignore the others.

    I'm not sure where you picked this up, it's been a standard fringe right meme ever since Saint Ronnie Raygun and the radicalizing of the NRA, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

    The 2nd amendment is there TO PROTECT THE STATE.
    Let me say it again since it goes so counter to your fantasies.
    The 2nd amendment is there TO PROTECT THE STATE.

    The founding oligarchs were in agreement over the need to protect the state but many were scared stiff of standing armies so the militia construct.
    Now, as a means to protect the state the militias proved one thing - the need for a standing professional army.
    They were pretty good at putting down insurrection and I will point your readers to the history of the Whiskey Rebellion , Dorr's rebellion and others that were put down by both state and federal force.

    So your understanding of history is clouded (by choice?) and I suggest minimal study before continuing feeding the gun loons.

  8. Ducky, that was before the federal government confiscated all of the State militias and drafted them all into the "Continental" Army. Can't have another Civil War....

    btw - What "other" State powers have the Continentals usurped? Just about ALL of them...

    The only "Rights" Americans have don't come from a piece of paper. They come from their ability to project FORCE. And that ability is in serious jeopardy from THIS Administration.

  9. Don't you love it when these know-it-alls barge in and tell you what you don't know and what you ought to think, FT?

    They're so unaware of who they really are they don't realize they prove you right when they post these rude remarks.

    I've been away for a while. Good to see you are still going strong.

    Helen Highwater

  10. Ducky,

    Getting all strict constructionist all of the sudden?

    The part that gets me in the 2nd Amendment are the words "militia" and the phrase "to protect the security of a FREE State."

    I think it's reasonable to assume that the Founding Fathers considered a militia to truly be a group of citizen soldiers. I don't know if involuntary conscription was a thing in America in 1789 (I know the draft was a thing by at the latest 1860), but there's an argument that literally anyone could be part of the militia.

    Since the Founders had a huge aversion to the notion of a standing army with professional soldiers (they often referred to such men as "mercenaries," unless of course they were officers), it's unlikely that they meant only for professional soldiers to be allowed to bear arms.

    Then there's that whole "protect a free State," thing. The key word in here is "FREE." If the state were to become not-free, then wouldn't it be the duty of the militia to protect the "free" state, i.e. make it free again?

    And just WHO is the state? Is it simply the people we elect to run everything? Does that include non-elected government employees? Appointees? And is that all? Does the state only include those who actually run it?

    I would argue that we the people are also included in this notion of a "free State." If those people are threatened by an enemy--foreign AND domestic, as the oath for professional soldiers would have it--then would they not have the right, the duty, to protect said free State from those who would seek to make it not-free?

    Or is the Declaration of Independence just a collection of ideas which we can toss aside for expedience?

    Please, provide me some other political philosophy that suggests I've got this all twisted.

  11. Well Jack, considering that the definition of a "free state" is pretty fluid it hasn't moved us very far.
    It certainly doesn't compel us to accept the Libertarian mantra which is relatively new since the idea of letting the nation devolve into a bunch of armed pockets led by war lords, or not led at all maybe.

    Somalia may be your ultimate model but please don't be surprised when the rest of us opt out and neuter you.

  12. ... and more to the point, your contention is wrong on its face.

    The amendment was there to protect the government, i.e. the state.
    Now, the founding bourgeois property owners were concerned about means to change and control government but allowing insurrection by the masses was not remotely part of their intent.

  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


    Comments unrelated to the material presented in each daily post will be summarily deleted, UNLESS I, myself, find them of potential value to others and particular interest to me, personally.

    ~ FreeThinke

  17. Ducky,

    Straight from the Federalist Papers.

    From Federalist #28, Hamilton:

    "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense . . ."

    Hamilton goes on to talk about the importance of well-armed state militias, as he and the Framers saw that as a way for the people to throw off the shackles of an oppressive national government.

    And from Federalist #29 "Regulation of the Militia," also Hamilton:

    "If there be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of reeiveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants . . . and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed peoples?"

    The militia he is referring to is the people, the citizenry at large. And the question he is asking is would a government attempt to oppress its people if the government knew that the citizenry was armed--well enough armed that they could feasably outnumber the standing army? The answer is that the government wouldn't be so stupid as to usurp power over the people, knowing that they are armed and ready to fight against such domestic enemies.

    These are a few reasons why the Founding Fathers believed in an armed citizenry. Sure, they stomped the Whiskey Rebellion, but that was not the same as an all out revolution against a tyrannical government.

    So yeah, it would seem that the Founders really did believe in the notion of a well regulated militia--citizen soldiers--who would be ready to answer the call in case of national crisis whether the enemy be foreign or domestic.

    Seeing as how Hamilton helped write the Constitution, I'd say that's a pretty good source on deciphering what they meant in the 2nd amendment.


  18. And for the record, I consulted my own copy of the Federalist Papers. This is my own extrapolation after reading those two particular pieces.

    You don't really do this to me much Ducky, but please don't assume I just pulled this defense from some gun-rights activist.

  19. Well Jack, I have yet to see an successful armed revolt in America.

    The obvious example is the Civil War. The state will preserve itself.It's sett;ed.

  20. Good idea. Thinke. Man.

  21. Well Ducky, the idea is that if the reason for revolt is legitimate (I would argue that the South was NOT justified in its revolt), then there would be enough people incensed to take action.

    If, for example, the government simply abolished the entirety of the 1st Amendment without going through the amendment process, I would imagine that just about the entire country would march on Washington.

    Not to mention that when you consider the type of people populating the military today, I can guess that there would be quite a few members of the standing army going rogue.

    The Civil War was a regional rebellion over a regional problem (slavery). If the people as a whole believed that the South was justified in rebelling, the Civil War would have turned out much differently.

  22. You GO, Jack!

    Rah Rah Rah!

    Good man!

    Canardo just makes it up as he "foes" along, but acts like his words come straight from the horse's mouth.

    Instead, they come straight from a horse's ass. ;-)

    Cheap shot, I know. I'm in one of my [increasingly rare] "undignified" moods tonight.

  23. @ Ducky

    I'm kind of surprised. As many times as I've heard you decry the militarization of the police, I would have thought that you'd be an ardent supporter of an individual right to "keep and bear arms". We may need them some day.

    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

    Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
    -- Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

    (Those) who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right (are) courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.
    -- Alan Dershowitz

    Politics, as they say, does make for strange bedfellows.

  24. You know, Jack, I've been rude lately and I apologize.

    What brings it on is this "freedom" business. It's just a complete farce that serves very little purpose but to stop conversations. Too often people use it as if they are throwing down this magical trump card.
    Too amorphous. Myself I like the Anatole France definition:
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

    I'm sure your mileage varies.

  25. I can understand your point on the "freedom card," as you put it. I think a lot of people use that without really understanding the complexity of the term.

    A lot of people say it because they heard someone on Fox News say it. If that's what you mean by it being a farce, then I see what you mean.

    A lot of people I know, many of the liberals, tell me that it's silly to think that the government would try to legitimately oppress us and set up a totalitarian state as if despotism is something of an ancient relic. Then I point out the myriad of modern day despots. But they act as though it can't happen here.

    I tell them to never underestimate the will to power. Mind you, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

    For me, the right to bear arms has more to do with man's inherent right to defend himself moreso than to protect ourselves from tyrannical government.

    I'm sorry if I've been rude. I rarely ever take the high road. Probably just my youthful angst =)

  26. 25 years in the military and nobody ever handed me a semi-automatic assault rifle.

    Go figure.

  27. At 28 don't you think you are getting little old to hide behind youthful angst, Mr. Camwell?

    ------------> Katharine Heartburn

  28. Mr. Viburnum, your contribution is just the kind of thing most needed to give credibility to these blogs most of which are the cyber equivalent of a lot of hot air.

    Mr. Camwell was helpful too when he took snippets from the Federalist papers. I admire him for knowing them well enough to find appropriate quotations. As a whole they are written in dense, unamusing prose and therefore make very tedious reading.

    -------------> Katharine Heartburn

  29. FT et. al., on the matter of gun control, I'm curious if you have been following any of the commentary on the left, specifically Thom Hartmann's discussion of the 2nd amendment.

    He is examining the influence of southerners and most specifically Patrick Henry, on forming the 2nd amendment as a means to ensure the protection from Federal interference of the militias policing slaves.
    His sources are scholarly and I bring this up as an example that does shed light on just what "freedoms" many of the founding oligarchs were interested in preserving.

    I think it's a good example of how little many of us know about our history and how much of our accepted knowledge may be totally off base.
    It is insidious because it is one more reminder that "states rights" is almost impossible to separate from slavery.

  30. I find the tendency for the federales to legally justify "torture" a reminder that "individual rights" may soon go the way of what were formerly "state's rights"...

    jes sayin'

  31. viburnum, you must have missed the part where I said your pop guns are outclassed.

  32. I make it a point to absorb as little leftist propaganda as possible -- hard to do when one can't help but be both saturated and bombarded with it at every turn, unless one chooses to live the life of an actual hermit.

    One again I will quote the estimable Bitch Cassidy who famously said:

    "You don't have to eat a pound of shit to know it don't taste good."

    I could only add: "You can tell from the smell."

  33. Yes, FJ. How could we preserve our God-given rights, if those at the helm are determined to mock and defame God and prohibit public acknowledgement of Him in hopes of obliterating all awareness of His presence in our lives?

    Of course, being God He will win in the end, but the cost to humanity of perverse public policy will be enormous as it always is when people allow themselves to be persuaded to shun Truth and embrace Falsehood.



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.