Thursday 02-14-13

An intresting prespective
 

2nd Amendment And The Kool-Aid Drinkers by Paul Howe

I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberal’s intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment. I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.

WHO’S COMING TO GET THEM?

United Nations (UN)
We are the UN. Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight. America is the enforcement arm of the U.N. We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.
If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.

Federal Government Military
Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution. I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.
Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities. Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time. Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness. Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down. In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.

Federal Government DHS or TSA
The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns. If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break. Physically conducting raids is exhausting. After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back. It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective
Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community. Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families. Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk. If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves. They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.

State Law Enforcement
The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:

• Seize guns
• Ignore the Federal Orders

If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.

Local Law Enforcement
Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens. A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons. Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.
Remember, Chiefs and Sheriff’s also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking. It would not go well. Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight. Remember also, they have to sleep sometime. Their homes and families would be at risk. It is an ugly scenario at best.

Nation of Combat Veterans and Patriots
Having been at war for over 10 years, we have a nation of combat vets and contractors that have seen more action than many of our WWII vets. It has been said that only a small percentage of Americans stood up to the British War machine in the Revolutionary War. Americans are better armed and trained today than at any time in our nation’s history. Think about what would happen if just our nation’s veterans stood up. People have been buying more guns and ammunition in the past five years than any time in my life. The guns and ammunition are out there along with the talent to use them.

Kool-Aid Drinkers
Kool-Aid Drinkers is the term I use to describe the Jonestown voluntarily massacre where the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, a dedicated community western Guyana by the Peoples Temple led by cult leader Jim Jones intentionally drank poison Kool-Aid. Over 900 people died.
In every law enforcement, government and military agency or branch, there are a small number of Kool-Aid drinkers who would blindly follow orders. They would either be purged internally by their co-workers or people they attacked would stop their gene pool.
Also, at the police tactical team level, all members “volunteer” for the job and they can have the individual integrity to terminate their team service at any time if their profession becomes corrupt or misguided. I know many a good officer that has done that in the past.
Finally, there would be a certain number of American Kool-Aid drinkers that would turn in their weapons if asked. I believe it would be a small percentage as there are always those that do not have the will to resist or fight and they are not needed should thing get tough.

History of “Gun-Free Zones”
Our nation’s history is filled with examples of “gun-free” zones failed.
The Aurora Colorado movie massacre and the recent Connecticut shooting are two that come to mind. Also, remember the Fort Hood massacre where an Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers because our military bases are gun free zones. Combat trained soldiers had to be rescued by a security guard. That is embarrassing.
Evil came to all of these places and everyone was disarmed and not ready to fight back because they were gun free zones.
Think what would happen at a national level if the American people were disarmed. Another evil would come along either from inside our country or outside of it and resulting in our downfall.

How about others in recent history:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Solutions
Write your state representatives and let them know how you feel about this issue. I would like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Next, at the local level, talk to your Sheriff or Chief of Police and ask them if they would allow or support the federal government in their confiscation of firearms. Put them on the spot now and hold them accountable. I like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car. Point them to California and let them know all the Hollywood types would be happy to financially support them in the fantasy land they wish to live in and that they are not welcome in Free America.
In the end I believe that guns are the glue that hold our country together. Guns keep the government in check and the individual American safe and free. Remove guns and the government will no longer be controlled by the people. The government will control the people.
Finally, it is claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, in 1775 were started because General Gage attempted to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the population resulting in the “Shot heard round the world.”
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/

It is amazing what they feel is important.

DHS admits it does not track immigrants who become welfare dependent, pursued zero cases last year
In a response letter to four top Republican lawmakers, the Department of Homeland Security revealed it initiated only one case against an immigrant for becoming a “public charge,” or being primarily dependent upon the government, in fiscal year 2012. The case was later withdrawn.
While the department’s response to Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch and Pat Roberts’ August oversight request offered an overview of the centuries-old federal public-charge restrictions, it noticeably avoided several of the senators’ direct questions and demonstrated potentially significant inadequacies in record-keeping by immigration officials, who legally should be enforcing public-charge rules for immigrants both inside and outside of the country.

The response, for example, failed to explain why immigrants are only assessed for their potential reliance on just two of the more than 80 federal means-tested welfare programs when the government determines if they are “public charges” prior to their entry into the U.S. — meaning that they are likely to become primarily dependent on federal aid for subsistence after arriving.

  http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/13/dhs-only-makes-one-public-charge-deportation-in-last-fiscal-year-admits-inadequate-recordkeeping/#ixzz2KoJhzhx3