History Channel’s Sons of Liberty Miniseries

If you haven’t watched this series, I would highly recommend you give it a chance.  I will warn that it takes some dramatic license and condenses the time frame in order to present a tight, three 2-hour miniseries rather than a more drawn out season-long series centered on the men who became known as the Sons of Liberty.

The series is focused on the events leading up to the arrival of General Gates of the British and the formal Declaration of Independence.  Many of the men that would go on to become our nation’s Founding Fathers have prominent roles in this miniseries.  For all of the series’ faults, it does an excellent job conveying the tone and the overarching themes and threats of the time.  It showed the British soldiers more as an occupying army than anything else, but it also showed the patriots as drunks, thugs, and rioters.

During the lead up to the Boston Massacre on screen, you can understand the motivations of either side.  The British, outnumbered and in the midst of an unruly crowd on the verge of violence, had justification in defending themselves.  The Colonists were likewise shocked when they did just that despite their own provocations just moments before.

Where the series has it’s faults are in the details.  Phrases and quotes were spoken by the wrong person, and the series falls short of providing the full discourse and philosophical thoughts that the HBO John Adams’ series so perfectly nailed.  The History Channel’s production though succeeded in showing the events in total and how each side kept escalating the situation until violence between the two was inevitable.

What I want to mention though is that the miniseries did one amazing thing.  It showed that the rebellious Sons of Liberty would have been rounded up and hanged pretty soon after General Gates’ arrival if not for their willingness to fight and their ability to fight on equal terms of the British regulars who marched to Lexington and Concord.  The British had numbers and experience.  The farmers, millers, and minutemen assembled on Lexington Green and at Concord Bridge had neither, but they had weapons with which to oppose and turn away the British Army that day.

What is so often forgotten in the present age is how the colonists were as well armed as the British regulars with privately held muskets, pioneer long rifles, and cannons.  Yes, cannons.  The American colonists were able to defend their right to free speech, their right to assemble, and to be secure in their papers and property, etc etc etc BECAUSE they had arms.  They had weapons, modern military weapons including weapons of such destruction as heavy cannons, and they were equal to those of their oppressors, not weakened civilian grade versions or likenesses.

At one point George Washington at the Contintental Congress was asked what the Massachusetts men could do with General Gage pressing martial law in Boston.  He said to resist.  I don’t know if Ole George ever gave that advice, but if he did, he had to have known that the only means of resistance when your oppressor means to bring arms to bear against you is to take arms up in defense and for that one must OWN, KEEP, and HAVE those arms and ammunition at your immediate disposal.

That is the foundation principle behind the Second Amendment to the American Constitution.

Thank you History Channel for really highlighting that, whether you meant to do so or not, because without those privately held arms, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Joseph Warren, and the others would be only footnotes in history as traitors to the Crown and the troubles in Boston would have been quashed by the full might of the British Empire before they became full blown rebellion.

Gun Free Zones

Yesterday, a landmark judicial opinion was issued by a US District Court judge in Denver, Colorado.  The judge declined a motion for summary judgment by Cinemark Theaters over the infamous Aurora, Colorado movie theater massacre years ago. 

If you recall, that theater prohibited legal concealed or open carry of firearms except by uniformed police officers by posting a prohibition on firearms.  This is not anything new or rare.  Nearly every mass shooting to occur (where more than 3 people not necessarily related are killed by gunfire in one location) has happened in a location where firearms are generally prohibited. 

That fact was not lost on the judge when it was ruled that Cinemark can be held liable for not providing ample security for it’s “sitting duck” patrons. 

How differently would business owners feel toward lawful open and concealed carry if every location that posted a “no guns” sign would be held liable for any injury or death that occurred on their premises due to a violent encounter by another individual? 

When you, as a property owner, insist that someone else either consciously trespass on your property by continuing to carry against your personal policies, or rather, those of your insurance company, or put their life in your hands by forcing them to surrender the most effective means of self-defense held by the general public in modern times, it is you who are immoral for foisting such a Faustian bargain on them.

You may say, “just shop somewhere else,” but perhaps you work for a company that requires it.  Should you surrender your livelihood or be forced to put your life in the hands of a company that doesn’t take employee safety and security as importantly as it puts data protection or the bottom line?  Should the doctor who stopped a murderous rampage have left his gun in his car in the parking lot rather than keeping it with him in the firearms-prohibited hospital?  If he hadn’t disobeyed a stupid policy, he would likely be dead, and many more in addition.

As a business owner, when you ask your patrons to lay down their God-given right to life (and defense thereof), in order to conduct business with you, you are acting immorally and unethically and it’s about time that someone finally called them on it.  This will be a lesson learned the hard way unfortunately as we have witnessed shooting after shooting in these firearms-prohibited locales and will continue to do so until they are eliminated entirely.

Logic

“There is no logic in following the Constitution when you feel like it, and mocking it when you don’t.”

Gun Control

 

Feds admit: Gun laws won’t slow crime

Feds admit: Gun laws won’t slow crime.

Duh.

What Goes Around…

LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

 

Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.

 

The elected body of the state of New York has voted to severely infringe on the Rights of it’s citizens. EFI is placing all state agencies, entities, and localities on our black list permanently. We will not remove these entities from banned status even upon repeal or court removal of these offensive gun control laws.

Any state that follows in the foot steps of New York will receive the same from us. As a member of the firearms and ammunition industry, we at EFI strongly encourage our peers in the industry to match us in our stance.

 

Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed

Here’s a novel idea –

Firearms manufacturers – refuse to sell, ship spare parts for, or repair any firearms from states that pass more onerous restrictions (New York and California for now, possibly Colorado in the near future) and states where the leadership of the state or city has used their position to attempt to browbeat the industry via backchannels (Chicago thanks to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and New York City thanks to Mayor Michael Bloomberg).  This must also apply to all levels of government, whether they are cities, towns, counties, states, or the federal government itself.  Any restrictions on citizens’ rights will be met with equal restrictions on the arms available to the agencies of the government.

 

 

 

An Absolute Right

I know that some of you read what I write because I try to always bring things back to God, to those of you I apologize for my focus as of late has been on the works of men.  It’s not that I hate lost sight of God through all of this hyperbole and vitriolic hatred highlighted by the political left’s insistence on punishing all gun owners for the actions of evil men, but that I have recognized it for the threat that it is.  I do not say it lightly when I say that any attempt to ban, confiscate, or register any firearms will not be met kindly by myself or many others like me.  I will not hypothesize on what I will and won’t do in that event as we have not crossed that bridge yet, but I fear that there are short-sighted politicians who are flirting with the idea far too much.

So why do I consider it a threat?  If I believe that nothing man can do can hurt me as Scripture tells us, than why does it matter?

It matters because of the long-term results of those efforts.  That violent crime rates go up following such actions each and every time – rape, armed robbery, gun crime, assault, home invasions, murder – across the board in every instance in history.

It matters because of the actions of democratically elected governments that move to ban the last protection of the minority in the face of oppression and tyranny – the ability to use adequate force in defense of liberty and freedom.

Wait, what?

Let’s play a quick hypothetical: let’s say that the United States passes a law either by legislation or executive order (Don’t get me started on how egregious this idea would be, but can you say casus belli?) that bans further purchase of certain semiautomatic firearms and then requires those that are permitted by a grandfathering clause to be registered with the federal government.  What is to prevent the next mass shooting from causing the same politicians from deciding to now confiscate all of those registered firearms?

You see, without registration, confiscation is exceptionally difficult and dangerous.  There aren’t enough law enforcement officers and agents and every level of the government combined to confiscate the firearms of 100 million gun owners (and let’s not mistake ourselves, every modern semiautomatic handgun and rifle would be part of this round up since they can accept magazines of whatever capacity the manufacturer wants to build and distribute).  With registration, the politicians would be able to “target” the population for confiscation more effectively and eliminate unnecessary searches, etc.

Once a significant amount of the population is disarmed, there is not enough manpower to offer significant resistance against oppression or tyranny.  This isn’t me just speculating, it is documented history.  Just in the last hundred years we have the following instances.

Turkey (1915-1917). 1-1.5 million Armenian Christians killed.  Turkey required permits to own firearms at all and total registration (which led to targeted confiscation from the Armenian population).  Gun control laws were passed in 1866, 1911, and 1915.

USSR (1929-1945). 20 million political prisoners. Total registration and confiscation laws passed in 1918, 1920, and 1926.

Nationalist China (1927-1949). 10 million communist sympathizers and political opponents. Total registration and confiscation laws passed in 1914 and 1935.

Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe (1933-1945). 20 million political opponents (communists, anti-fascists), gays, Jews, Gypsies, and others. Total registration laws passed in 1928. Confiscation laws passed in 1938.

The People’s Republic of China (1949-1952, 1957-1960, 1966-1976). 20-35 million political opponents and “enemies of the state.” Total registration laws and ban on private ownership laws passed in 1951 and 1957.

Guatemala (1960-1981). 100,000-200,000 Mayans, indigenous peoples, and political enemies. Registration laws passed in 1932. Prohibition on bearing arms laws passed in 1947. Total ban and confiscation laws passed in 1964.

Uganda (1971-1979). 300,000 Christians and political enemies. Registration law passed in 1955. Confiscation law passed in 1970.

Cambodia (1975-1979). 2 million educated people and political enemies. Total registration law passed in 1938.

Rwanda (1994). 800,000 Tutsi people. Registration and confiscation laws passed in 1979.

Other notable government-sanctioned murders are as follows:

Japan (5,964,000 noncombatants during WWII), Vietnam (1,678,000), North Korea (1,633,000), Pakistan (1,503,000), Mexico (1,417,000), Yugoslavia (1,072,000 from 1944 to 1987), Czarist Russia (1,066,000 from 1900 to 1917).

Grand total, not counting other genocides such as those in Bosnia during the 1990s, or Darfur in this past decade, stands at 88,533,000 killed by their GOVERNMENT.  88 million is a conservative estimate, the grand total is surely higher.

That is why I fight so hard about this issue.  The very people put into power to protect your freedoms and liberties can turn around and use their authority to kill you, your family, and everyone you love.   With just one exception, the gun control laws passed “to save just one life” were turned around and used by future regimes to target minorities and political enemies.  In that one case, the SAME regime used those laws to target their internal enemies.

Semiautomatic firearms of military pattern in the hands of the people of America defend every single person in this country from the same fate now and decades in the future, because any attempt to push this country in that direction will and can be met with equal force of arms.  THAT is what the Second Amendment enshrines.  THAT is what is what George Washington and the other founders meant when they wrote or spoke the following.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people

Tench Coxe

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

Samuel Adams

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Patrick Henry

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Patrick Henry

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.

George Washington

Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.

Aristotle, quoted by John Trenchard & Water Moyle

For further reading, I highly encourage you to read Daniel Polsby’s Of Holocausts and Gun Control.

[The Founding Fathers] rejected the concept of a state monopoly of armed power–“the most dangerous of all monopolies,” according to Madison–in favor of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

Daniel Polsby

*Statistics regarding genocide from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership & Marmatt.com.

III

Quotes of the Day: January 10

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

Ayn Rand

You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.

John Adams

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

George Washington

Freedom is never given, it is won.

A. Philip Randolph

If you think you can win, you can win. Faith is necessary to victory.

William Hazlitt

On a more activist note, exercise your 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights fully on January 19th.  Send a shot across the bow to the government that our rights are not granted by them and neither can they rescind them in any way.  Open carry.  Walk around with a rifle on a sling all day in public.  Go shooting. Buy a gun. Go to a gun show.  (Edited to add: Do as Karl Denninger suggest and send a not-so-subtle hint to your legislators, governors, and President.) Buy ammunition.  Spread the word that freedom is WON, not granted, and we intend to defend our victory spoils.

If you really don’t want to have to rely on that last palladium of liberty and a resort to actually use your firearms to protect this nation against tyranny, then use your firearms on the soap box of public action and free speech.

Paradigm Shift – Forget the Clutch

Those of us in the liberty movement, the patriot movement, the pro-gun camp, libertarians, Constitutionalists, conservatives, what have you… we need a paradigm shift if we are ever to fight back against the onward trudge of tyranny.  For too long we have allowed the political left to dominate the discussion by setting the terms of debate.

It is time for that to end.

I have pointed out before the fallacious term assault weapon and the misused term assault rifle in the past as have others ad nauseum.  The firearm industry has coined sporting utility rifle as an alternative, but I have stumbled upon another idea that has merit.  I like the idea of classifying a semiautomatic pistol grip rifle as a sporting utility rifle as it caters to the left’s strange obsession with not targeting “sportsmen” and “hunters,” but it still is allowing them to define the terms of debate.  Like I said, this is going to end here and now.

If the liberals get what they want, and I am choosing to just highlight one of their foci, on standard (or as they call them high) capacity magazines banned, they will put me and my family at risk.  If I have to reload after ten shots, I may find myself locked in close hand-to-hand combat with a thug intent on doing me and my family harm and while I believe myself capable of handling one such individual, two is another story entirely.  That is why standard (12, 15, 18 rounds for most modern semiautomatic polymer frame double-stack handguns such as the common Glock, Springfield XD, or Smith & Wesson M&P; 30 rounds for AR pattern rifles) size magazines are so important.  I can engage four or five attackers down the hallway of my house, with enough firepower and ammunition to resist a determined advance from all of them at once.

You see, my rifle is not an assault weapon, an assault rifle, a killing machine, a weapon of war (yet), or a sporting utility rifle.  My rifle is a FAMILY DEFENSE RIFLE.  With it, I can put up a wall of lead to shield my sons and wife.

So the next time someone asks me why I need so many shots in one magazine, my answer will simply be because I love my family and will always possess every advantage necessary to defend them.

 

Need

One of the questions being blasted over the airwaves and over print media has been “why does anyone need an assault rifle/high capacity magazine?” (My apologies over the use of assault rifle per my previous rants on this misnomer).

This is a difficult question to answer as the sort of person asking the question either has not thought through the ramifications of their premise, nor are they knowledgeable enough about Constitutional construction, modern firearms technology, or lethal force application principles to be involved in the discussion anyway.

How do you answer their question sufficiently in a way that they will understand without belittling their lack of information or understanding?

Christ often used parables to insert a thought into the minds of men who were either incapable or unwilling to know and understand the Truth if presented openly.  What follows was inspired by a number of similar writings on message boards and hopefully conveys this concept in a way more commonly understood than by those of us who have taken the time to learn not only where we stand, but why we stand there based on facts and historical writings.

The authors of the Constitution were extremely forward thinkers.  They understood when they put pen to paper to write our foundational document that they would not have all of the answers.  They included things like the amendment process in order to allow the document to be modernized and changed while still preserving the integrity of it and the principles it codified.  They also understood that they would one day die and it would be up to others to interpret that document to infer those principles as time and technology advanced.  They wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers of the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it (which are the Bill of Rights) and how those should be understood for common men and for future generations.

Now, the United States, with all of it’s component parts, side-by-side systems and hierarchical structure is fairly similar to a computer.  The Constitution is the computer’s operating system.  It provides the framework for all of the computer’s potential to be put to work.  All of the various laws and bureaucracies are like computer programs – some are big, some are small, but they are supposed to work with the operating system to enhance the computer.

The founders understood men to be fallible, so they codified the First Amendment, our right to freedom of speech, the press, to assemble, to petition the government to tackle our complaints and fix the problems we have with it.  The First is like an antivirus and firewall on a computer.  It protects the inner workings of the computer from malicious programs or data packets that would damage it, one of the regular programs, or the operating system as a whole.  The founders considered it to be the first line of defense against corruption and destruction of the computer of the U.S.

Imagine your computer, what is the first program that starts after you turn it on?  The operating system.  The second is the antivirus and firewall.

What happens to your computer though when something invades through the firewall and disables the antivirus?  What can you do?

There are a few options remaining.  You can wipe the system, reinstall the operating system, and essentially start completely anew, but having lost a great deal of time and irreplaceable data.  Terrible damage was done, but all was not lost.  That is what the Second Amendment to the Consitution is for… it codified the right, that the founders understood to be possessed by all by virtue of their very existence, to keep and bear arms (more on this momentarily).  They understood that the computer needed a way to defend itself as well and that if the very programs that defended the computer, such as the antivirus (freedom of the press), were co-opted to work for the malicious program, then a built-in defense mechanism would be necessary.  That mechanism needed to be sufficiently powerful to be able to overthrow the rogue programs and files, beat back the original malicious program, and basically do a system restore to the “computer.”  It’s dirty, annoying, and takes time, but some malicious programs are that mean.

But, do you really need a rifle that can shoot thirty times before reloading?

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Noah Webster

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Patrick Henry

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

Albert Gallatin

The right of self defence is the first law of nature…. Wherever the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

St. George Tucker

No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people

William Rawle

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression.

Thomas Cooley

So the next time someone asks why you need a thirty r0und magazine for your evil black rifle, don’t belittle them. Educate them on why.  Use a metaphor if you need to, but let them leave the conversation with a deeper respect of the reason why.  If you can break the framework of their thought process a little, you might just find them able to better understand the truth differently phrased.

Or simply ask them why they seem to want the return of feudalism or the rise of centralized totalitarianism so badly?

Violation of Second Amendment liberties is part of a comprehensive program to centralize political power and to overcome the ability of citizens to use the ballot box to resist the extension of this centralized political power.

Gary North

intelNews.org

Expert news and commentary on intelligence, espionage, spies and spying

LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar - OH!

Coffee? Tea? Whisky! - Aspirin anyone?

Stately McDaniel Manor

Culture, Politics, Firearms, Education, Literature, Philosophy, Music, And Other Musings

High Heels and Handguns

This princess is armed- The prince can't always be there to rescue you

Sheeple: People unable to think for themselves

Here to help educate the Sheeple before the slaughter

Reality Check

American Patriot's Reality Check

The Firewall

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it

The Radio Patriot

Because I have so many words...

Eatgrueldog

Where misinformation stops and you are force fed the truth III

Reality Of Christ

Christian, End Time, and Conspiracy News!

DAYLIGHT DISINFECTANT

DAN SANDINI'S NEWS OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM

The Longwood Institute

A site dedicated to the appreciation of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness along with the responsibilities these God-given unalienable rights invoke.

Ten Smiths Blog

What does the Declaration of Independence really say?

Deaconmatson's Blog

observations from America

Fighting For Liberty

LEARN FROM HISTORY OR BE DAMNED BY IT

Stiletto Momma

Balancing the high heels of life.

The DiploMad 2.0

All it takes is a spark

WINTERY KNIGHT

...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square