HOW SUSPICION AND FEAR ARE KILLING AMERICA

It's funny, you know, that I get so many angry emails in response to my blogs, but nobody wants to become a member of this blog or engage me publicly.  It's because they know I'll take them apart and make them look like the fools they are in a very public fashion.

And let's just be frank here... Most people think what I say is inflammatory and politically incorrect.  They're AFRAID to join because they might be associated with a guy accused of hate-speech!

O0o0o..... HATE.  SPEECH.

They also know that by contacting me via other channels, they can preserve their anonymity.  But I'm not going to betray anyone's privacy, okay?

Seriously, here's a question from a guy citing my very staunch stand on the Second Amendment.  It's no secret that my position can be summed up thusly: An armed society is a polite society.  This guy poses:

"I would like a question answered: In a free society what is the proper role of a police force? Should there even be one? Your arguments appear to advocate anarchy."

In a free state, the ultimate security and continued freedom of that state is up to the free citizens, who are granted the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for that express purpose.

No, it is not up to the Executive branch to protect us individually — the job of the Executive branch is to protect the NATION against all enemies foreign and domestic. However, the Second Amendment clearly calls upon Citizen Militias to ensure the security of a Free State.

This entails the armed citizenry protecting itself not only from local crime, but also from an increasingly corrupt and oppressive central government when necessary, just as the Founders intended.

No, a well-regulated Militia is NOT another arm of the Executive branch of government. No, police forces and the National Guard DO NOT constitute Citizen's Militias under the Constitution. A Citizen's Militia must, of necessity, NOT be regulated by the central government.

A Citizen's Militia is well-regulated by the CITIZENRY, not the government.

I, for one, do not believe that turning over our individual protection to the government is wise or healthy for our continued freedom. If the MILLIONS of police officers in this nation serve any purpose, it is as a RESPONSE force serving the citizenry.

However, when a corrupt or oppressive central government is calling the shots, WHO do you think the police, or the FBI, or the BATF, or the National Guard will serve? The government? Or the citizenry?

We already have ample evidence to answer THAT question.

Only seldom do the police and other law enforcement agencies actually PROTECT the citizenry. More crimes are prevented by armed citizens than by police forces, and any LEO can confirm that.

Frankly, I would feel safer if my neighbors WERE monitoring my property and DID call me rather than the police. In fact, my neighbors have called to alert me to prowlers, and I have done the same for them. 

That's the way things SHOULD BE DONE in this country, rather than citizens cowering in their homes, awaiting an official response force that may not arrive for 45 minutes or more.

Trust me, the "bad guys" in this town know I am armed and that I have no qualms about publicly exhibiting my firearms. I think that most of the citizens in this town are similarly armed and similarly defiant in the face of fear and suspicion.

Accordingly, the crime rate here is LOW compared to the rest of the country. An openly armed society is, indeed, a POLITE society.

But there is no place in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution where it says citizens may keep and bear arms TO FIGHT COMMON CRIME. It doesn't mention crime at all. Neither does it mention hunting.

Specifically, the Second Amendment says that the citizens may keep and bear arms to ENSURE a FREE STATE. That means taking up arms against other human beings who are attempting to REMOVE your freedoms.

It means taking up arms and fighting your own government when necessary, just as the Founders fought their (British) government. Because an oppressive government does not want the citizens armed.

It's the FIRST order of business for a tyrannical government to DISARM the citizens.

It's not your "duty" as citizens to mindlessly obey the 23,000 federal and local gun-control laws that exist to REMOVE your rights. It is your duty as American citizens to FIGHT these laws — through the ballot — and likewise vote out the politicians who are STEALING your rights, day-by-day.

Having posted at several gun-related Websites, I know that such sites are heavily infiltrated by anti-gun activists posing as concerned gun owners, who are disseminating thinly-veiled Socialist propaganda about SECURITY being more important than LIBERTY.

When I hear "gun owners" preaching suspicion and reporting their neighbors and outright, unreasoning FEAR, I know I'm not dealing with REAL, Liberty-loving Americans, okay?

No, I don't agree with the Law in many cases. I think the Law is WRONG in most cases. And I think MOST AMERICANS would agree that the anti-gun mentality is going to lead to the COMPLETE LOSS of our Liberties in America. The more you COMPLY with the insidious erosion of our RIGHTS, the more YOU are responsible for the death of our American Liberties.

I speak out against suspicion and reporting your neighbors and readily complying with the tens of thousands of laws issued to undermine the Second Amendment, okay?

Does that upset you?  Does that frighten you when I say the Law is WRONG and that people should stand up and FIGHT the Law?  Do you think I'm an OUTLAW advocating ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES?

Put it back in your pants, Joe Stalin.

I'm talking about pursuing every legal course to overturn and repeal unjust and unconstitutional laws in America. We have a DUTY, as Americans, to keep this land FREE, and not knuckle-under to fear and political correctness and suspicion and reporting our neighbors.

You know where the government encourages the citizens to report their neighbors and family members? They do that in COMMUNIST countries.