Arnold, the Second Amendment and SB962

Can you hear the bugle in the background?  Playing Taps?  The mournful sound that often signals the loss of someone or something very important!  Those of us that believe in the Bill of Rights which, contrary to some public opinion the Second Amendment is actually one of them, are slowly losing them in the backward state of California.

We want to let criminals out of jail early, the rights of the victims are being stomped on daily and now the Governor has decided that registering ammunition is a good idea.  No matter that the US Congress got rid of similar laws because they were totally ineffective.  In a state that cannot balance its budget, nor indeed even set a budget by the time set by STATE LAW, the find it a good idea to add paperwork and red tape because you want to buy ammunition for your already registered firearms.

Can you believe this crap?  This bill requires individuals purchasing ammunition be fingerprinted and registered at the time of sale, mandates that dealers keep these records and make them available for inspection by the California Department of Justice.  Ammunition retailers would also have to store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers.  Finally, mail order ammunition sales are prohibited under AB962.

Let me say that again.  The dealer must fingerprint the purchaser and then the purchase must be registered and made available to the DOJ.  


The word often overlooked in the Second Amendment is "infringed".  The dictionary defines infringed as To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate".  It certainly seems this is an infringement to me.

Here is a copy of the letter I wrote to Arnold.

I wanted to voice my opinion and one that is shared with many people I know. The signing of SB962 is very concerning and upsetting to me. The United States Congress abolished similar legislation because it found it did nothing to help to prevent or solve crimes. And if it does not do either of those two things all it can do is add more paperwork and the registering of owners of firearms.

The simple fact is, and is a very common sense thought is that those that are criminals will not obey the law and those that are not criminals should not be singled out in this way.

I understand that there is a great deal of argument about what rights the second amendment gives the citizens of the USA. There is also much disagreement about how the second amendment relates to specific states. It is funny though that is not a question on the other entries in the Bill of Rights. Can you imagine the outcry if we were told that in order to say or write something for public consumption we would have to get fingerprinted and have it monitored by the Department of Justice?

The laws on the books in this state concerning firearms and the right to keep and bear them are already far past the state of being infringed. What goes next? How about our fourth amendment rights? Or are these rights that are supposedly guaranteed by our forefathers and all the men and women who have fought and died for those rights only a suggestion that can be taken or ignored by the states.

I have lived all my life in California. Unfortunately with the erosion of our rights, not to mention such things as the taxes, are making me look to other states as my home. As a Registered Nurse (by the way groups like California Nursing Association do not speak for all nurses or other medical professionals) I am able to work anywhere in the Country. I hate to give up the state I grew up in believed in but the rights of the criminals has become more important than the rights of the citizens and victims and with the signing of SB962 there is a further denial of our rights and it may have been the last straw for myself and family.

Thank You for your time,

Dennis Peek RN

Please write to our Governor and voice your displeasure respectfully and remember to vote for freedoms and rights that we are guaranteed (supposedly) when the time to vote comes around.

http://gov.ca.gov/interact

Thank You for reading and please feel free to comment.

Sharia Law

Sharia Law. I had heard about it, little things, brutal things, but those laws existed in countries that are backwards, albeit rich from oil (ok not rich from the oil, rich from Countries like ours who purchase that oil). So what concern was it of mine what Sharia Law is. Besides we have our own laws, admittedly some stupid, some blatantly illegal (read the second amendment) but they are ours and based in some way on our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Then I saw the video (see the link above) and it scared the hell out of me. It is not one part of the video but the whole thing, the things that are said (I really encourage you to watch the video and also the unedited version that is available also).

The parts where the gentleman is trying to get a question answered shows a lot and tells a lot about Islam. But it is the parts where the people are the victims of assault and battery and of
threats of violence. This all took place in public place that was open to the public. You did not need a pass or buy a ticket to get in, all were allowed in. They were told that Christians had to go to a certain intersection to speak on their faith? Since when did we dispense of the First Amendment?

Have you ever wondered on how the amendments were put in order? I cannot back this up with documentation, but to me, and for me the first amendment is the most important right we have. Any people not able to speak out is not, and cannot be free. Then we come to the second amendment. Why is it so high? If you read the writings of people like Jefferson, Franklin, Mason and more they explain that only an armed society could be a society with free speech. Our founding fathers made some great leaps of faith. 2oo plus years and EVERY single amendment is still an important part of our heritage, our country and our very life.

The do-gooder anti-gun zealots don't mind using the 1st amendment to spout their rheotoric about the 2nd amendment. Us with the guns are the only thing standing between you and a country that could quash all of our other rights. Take this for example. A swat team appears at your door, knocking it down, crashing through windows, taking your family and putting them handcuffed on the floor. You are terrified. You have done nothing wrong. An officer walks up to you and says "sorry we got the wrong address" and they walk out. Today I guarantee there would be media of all kinds ready to make a case for you, get out the word for the abuse, tell everyone that you got a "sorry" and they did not even fix your doors. Now lets skip ahead and there is no longer a 2nd amendment. The anti gunners have finally won (that thought scares me to death) . So the swat team has come to your house again, and again wrongly for you are innocent. However this time you have no media to go to, you have no internet to post your complaints, in fact if you can find a place to complain it is likely no one will listen to you since that will probably be illegal and anti-government.

What was the intention of the 2nd amendment? People have argued this for ages. The words about the militia is pointed to be the anti gun zealots as meaning it is only for a group of people who form a militia. However the terminology is simple to understand when you listen to the words of the original authors. James Mason states "who is the militia? It is all of us". He does not say the 18 year olds. It is each of us. We are all tasked with protecting our lives and that includes stopping a government from becoming a tyranny. Yes we are tasked with taking the country back if a regime takes over and tries toremove our rights.

Support our way of life. Support the 2nd amendment and it will protect us.

Liberals and the Blind

In case you had not figured it out I tend to align myself closer with Conservatives then Liberals. I have nothing against Liberals except for what they stand for. Maybe not everything, but many of the things I hold near and dear. Little things like Freedom, honor, self support, personal responsibility.

It is frustrating and maddening to see these things slowly eroded by these Liberals. I don't mean all Liberals. Most are just like me, hardworking, concerned about the future for themselves, their families. No it is the Liberals like Dianne Feinsteinn and Nancy Pelosi who are supporting and authoring new laws that tear down the fabric of the people they are sworn to serve. They forget they work for us. At least that is how it is supposed to be. But in reality they work for themselves. They whore themselves out to the cause that will keep them in power. They sit in their fancy offices, with their staff and are proud of themselves for what they are doing. They actually may believe in some of what they say. Not much of it, but a bit.

How can they believe the crap they support? All they want is to keep people in need of the Government, keep the people in debt and keep them thinking that the root of all their problems are anything except their own actions. They want to blame the "rich" for not paying enough taxes so that they don't have to. They blame the businesses for keeping the masses down by high prices for the things they "need". Ok the game systems, the big screen TV's, fancy cars, jewelry, fancy clothes are all needs.

An example that I experienced was while working in the ER a few years ago. I was triaging when a young man came in. He was black but this has nothing to do with race, he just happened to be black. I don't remember what his medical issue was but I clearly remember that he was talking on an expensive cell phone, he was wearing expensive Nike shoes, he had several large and heavy gold necklaces and rings on. So, what is wrong with this? Nothing, except the fact that the state of california was paying for his insurance. He told me he did not have a job, that he was getting money from the state (not sure in what way) and he had not had to work for over a year. He also proudly said he did some work under the table so that he did not have to pay taxes on it and it did not stop the money coming in from the state. personnally this really pissed me off. I was there, working my ass off in the middle of the night and have this ass proudly proclaiming that he was living off the government dime, and I was the one providing the dimes.

Now I don't mind when someone hits hard times and needs some assistance but this is totally different. It was about this same time that I came across something that made me proud to be an American. I stopped at a Burger King Restaurant on a trip to the Bay Area to have a sandwich. I walked up to a young man working the counter and I was immediately struck with the fact that this man was blind. Not just vision impaired but fully blind. I watched him take an order for the person in front of me and he was able to enter the order on register. The price total came up on the screen that had a readout pointing towards the customer. The employee asked the customer what the total was. The customer read the total off and then handed the cashier a bill. The cashier asked how much he gave him. The man said he gave him $10.00 and the cashier made change and gave it to the customer.

I was amazed at many different levels. First they put a blind man out front for all to see (instead of hiding him in the back somewhere like often happens). Then they trusted the customers honesty in reading the total and telling the cashier how much money he handed him. And then they actually expected the cashier to know how to make change. That was amazing on its own. What my long winded point was driving at was that there was an able bodied young man sitting on his ass getting paid by the taxpayers so he could have his gold, nikes and cell phone while a blind man was out making a living. I know that I would have much preferred to subsidize the restaurant with my tax dollars so they could pay the man a wage he could live on then letting this lazy ass laugh at us poor working fools.

Ok so I may have gotten away from the original subject, but it all relates. Liberals don't want people to succeed. Success breeds conservatives. Lets face it, if you work hard for your money you want to keep your money and don't want those who choose not to work to get your money. Without those that rely on the government the jobs for the liberal politicians goes out the door. Worse then that is a person who needs some extra help, and they are out, making their own way, and believe it or not paying for those losers sitting on their ass.

H.R. 45

The anti-gunners aka anti-freedom, anti-2nd amendment establishment are at it again. This time it is H.R. 45 also known as the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. I guess that the people who were elected to represent us, to maintain and uphold the Constitution of these United States fall low in the order of importance. Building a warchest for the next election, ruthlessly attacking anyone with a dissenting view, spending time and money trying to take away the one right that helps protect all of our rights.

Ever wonder what a politician would look like if they had a real job? Lets see, they only work when they want, they can take money from outside sources to help secure their vote on a project. And of course they are fighting against the very fabric that holds the company together.

H.R. 45 Blair Holt Bill attempts to make it illegal to own a handgun unless you have a federal license to own a handgun. It will take an applicant to go through a process including taking written tests, giving all personal information including place of birth, thumbprints, and as the icing on this sour smelling dessert each each person has to sign and give access to the Attorney General OR an authorized representative that the Attorney General chooses, any mental health records pertaining to the applicant.

I wonder how many of the Amendments that would break. Certainly the Second Amendment. It would also certainly violate the Fourth Amendment.

This is incredibly frightening. I took the time to write Senator Diane Feinstein who is a strong advocate of stealing our guaranteed rights, starting with the Second Amendment. Below is the original letter I wrote, the Senator's response and my response back to her. Folks, read this. Read her words. Notice her wording. Forget the window dressing that is complete crap that she supports the Second Amendment. She lays it out plainly. I don't think I have heard a more obvious attack on the people of the United States that believe that we have the right of self protection. This is a direct quote:

"I appreciate that there are many law abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting and sport in a safe and effective manner and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun for such purposes."

So in other words we can hunt but cannot protect ourselves. Of course the next step is to limit what can be used to hunt with. And then limit the ammunition. Oh wait that is already moving through the politicians in Sacramento. Here is the full text of the letters.

H.R. 45 is an attack against our 2nd Amendment rights and is an attempt to

incrementally ban all guns within the United States. I urge you to use the power

of your office to oppose this bill. As one of your constituents I would like you to

respond to this email and let me know how you intend to respond to this legislation.

To protect our Constitution should be the basis of your service to the Country.

Those that came long before you wrote out a perfect document. A personal dislike of

firearms or in the ownership of them should not stop you from upholding the

Constitution including the Second Amendment which guarantees the right of Americans to

keep and bear arms. This has recently been upheld very specifically in the Supreme

Court in District of Columbia V. Heller. As a Registered Nurse with many years

experience in a busy Emergency Department I have seen many people come in with injuries

caused by criminals while the victim was unable to defend themselves. Approving

H.R. 45 will give more freedom to the criminals while restricting the Freedoms

guaranteed us by the Constitution.With the Constitution and the backing of

the Supreme Court I strongly urge opposition to this bill which clearly

infringes the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

With the Constitution and the backing of the Supreme Court I strongly urge

opposition to this bill which clearly infringes the right guaranteed by the

Second Amendment.

Dear Mr. Peek:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009" (H.R. 45). I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On January 6, 2009, Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) introduced the "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009", which would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a license under the Act. In addition, it would proscribe license application, issuance, and renewal requirements. H.R. 45 is awaiting action in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

During my tenure in the Senate, I have worked hard to introduce and support common-sense gun control legislation designed to keep our cities and neighborhoods safe. Additionally, I have worked to prevent criminals and children from having access to firearms. For example, I authored legislation to restrict large-capacity ammunition magazines and ban Assault Weapons, which was enacted into law in 1994. Unfortunately, that ban expired in 2004. At the same time, however, I appreciate that there are many law abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting and sport in a safe and effective manner and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun for such purposes.

Please know that I understand your views with regard to establishing additional laws on the sale and licensing of firearms. It is helpful for me to hear the views of Californians throughout the legislative process. Finally, while there is currently no companion legislation to H.R. 45 in the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind should such legislation be considered in the future.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on matters of importance to you. Best regards.

Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Dear Senator;

I appreciate your response to my letter opposing H.R. 45. However the very things you say in that response tells me that you are NOT a supporter of the Second Amendment and therefore are not working in the best interest of the people you serve.

The Second Amendment is very clear. One of the words often forgotten is infringed as "shalll not be infringed". Yet in your response it states "I appreciate that there are many law abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting and sport in a safe and effective manner and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun for such purposes." The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport, although those are perfectly legitimate reasons to own a firearm. It is about self protection, the right we have as citizens in a free nation to protect ourselves and others from those wishing to do harm. In the recent Heller decision by the Supreme Court they say specifically that one has the right to "keep and bear arms" for protection.

I am also very concerned about the part of H.R. 45 saying that to possess a firearm that a person must be issued a license. Do you not agree that would be infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?

Your very history of writing the assault weapon ban law and the large capacity magazine laws show that you are out of touch with the reality of people that live in the state. There is little or no evidence that those laws have done anything to "prevent criminals and children from having access to firearms. All those laws do is prevent those that are, at least should be, covered under the Second Amendment from aquiring firearms that have been villified by a name "assault rifle".

I wonder what would happen if you tried to restrict people from the First Amendment. Or they had to get a license to have free speech, but then they could only talk about 1 subject at a time because of the new law preventing multiple subjects. Maybe the press would not like being told that a newspaper can only have 1 article instead of many because they could attack many subjects without reloading...oh I meant reprinting.

The Second Amendment means exactly what it says. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And Senator Feinstein I take it very seriously that you are infringing on my rights and those of every other citizen of this great country.

I would greatly love to hear your responses to this letter.

Thank You again for taking the time to respond

Dennis Peek RN

Do not let this happen. Do not let the officials that we elect use the power we give them to break down the fabric that holds us together.

We have the right to be able to defend ourselves. More than 200 years ago our founding Fathers perceived this threat. That is the reason for the Second Amendment. To protect ourselves from those wishing to do us or our family harm and to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

Thanks for reading. Stayed tuned for more.

Dennis the one eyed shooter :)

Anti-Gun NUTS

For a long time you have been hearing about the "gun nuts". You hear from our elected officials who, I apprently mistakenly, thought were tasked, at least partially at protecting our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is not their job to interpret those documents, but to support and protect them.

Yes we have people like Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein making it their jobs to subvert the Constitution. Talk about gun nuts! Listen to them, hear past the words and try to understand what they mean. They want to disarm our society. The want to blame the problems in our society on firearms, as if these pieces of machinery have a life of their own, moving from place to place trying to cause death whereever they can.

Why do these people these true gun nuts want us to be unarmed? Maybe that answer lies in the documents this country is founded on. We have all read the 2nd amendment and heard all the arguments from both sides of issue. What we hear are people interpreting what the founding Fathers meant by the amendment. It is not about the word "militia" or "people" that is the most important. Not when the reasons it was written was very specifically spoken about by the very people who wrote it.

(more to follow)

Folsom Police

(This post is about a tragic shooting by the Folsom Police on a out of control man attacking them with a knife). My condolences to the family. I understand the loss may be tragic and seem senseless. I don't know many of the specifics of this event but what I do know is that the family called the police because their son was out of control. They had no idea why he had been like this for 2 days or so. That is important. The family could not handle this. they needed the police to try and control their son. They police arrived to a call where all they knew was that this man was out of control. He attacked the officers and they attempted to use a taser on him. For an unknon reason the taser did not work even when he was tased AGAIN. Now we have a man with a deadly weapon threatening the police officers. They have little room to manuaver, to be able to take him down gently, in fact the small area makes this man a much more dangerous threat. The distance at which a knife wielder becomes a threat is considered to be about 12' which is the distance the average person could move in 1 1/2 seconds. Obviously this was much closer. At this point the officers really only had one choice and that was to use deadly force. Police NEVER aim to wound. One reason is that if they use deadly force then it is because there is a deadly force threat against them or someone else. Another reason is that even at close distances it is almost impossible to "shoot to wound". And unlike TV an arm wound or even a leg wound will not necessarily stop an attack. The best way to stop an advancing attacker is to shoot into the pelvic girdle which is what supports the body. That however is likely to be a killing shot also.

I am truly sorry for the loss the family suffered, but to try and blame it on the officers who are trying to get home to their own families (think of 4 dead officers in Oakland recently who did not make it home) is simply wrong. If they do bring suit against the officers it will lessen each of us in many ways. Other officers are going to be less willing to put their life in danger due to the threat of being sued. The cost of a trial, the suffering the officers will go through during a trial, not to mention that they are already going to carry around inside of them the knowledge that they took a human life. Be sad for the family. Feel badly for the son. But feel also for the officers.

One last thing though. If the same thing occurred in Iraq, would you tell the soldiers not to fire but to try and subdue this person intent on injuring or killing them? This is no different. The wide view changes of course since it is more like a war in Iraq (although the war has been over a long time), but on a microscopic view, taking just these people and this incidence the officers have the same right to protect themselves as do the soldiers.

Thank You to the officers and soldiers that protect this country and its people.

BOB

BOB? Is that a name? Does it have a meaning? To those that subscribe to the idea that it is better to be prepared than not prepared BOB has a very specific meaning but can have a different meaning for each person.

BOB simply means Bug Out Bag. A bug out bag aka "bob" is a container that contains all of the essential items a person (or family) would need to have readily available in the event of an emergency. It would contain the obvious things, such as food and water for those who have a bob. However there are many other not so obvious things that should be included. I know each person will have their own special needs and this is not a primer on how to make your own bob, but to plant a seed so you learn what you need for yourself and put one together.

So when I mention an emergency what do I mean? That varies depending on where you live. Live where I do in California and the biggest concerns are earthquake, floods and fire. If you live in New Orleans or Houston hmmm maybe the concern is hurricanes? The point is an emergency that shuts down the normal public services can happen anywhere and at any time.

When you get the warning that a hurricane is headed your way and should hit in about 4 hours, guess what, it is too late to make your bob. The time to put bob together is on the beautiful day when you are sitting on the porch reading the paper. That is when you make notes and lists and begin putting things together.

Bob should contain the food and water, enough for each person in your party. Figure 1200 calories per person per day. Also plan on 1 gallon of water per person per day. This as I said is not a primer. To find much more information from others much more knowledgeable than me, I would suggest starting at www.equipped.com. The owner of this site is an expert on all things survival.

Notice I have not mentioned civil uprising, race wars, terrorism or the end of the world. Many people connect survival with survivalist. They may have some cross over ideas but they are different things. I will openly admit that the state of our country, and of the world has me very nervous and I think that previously unthinkable situations are becoming not only possible but inevitable. But since this is about bob I don't want to confuse the two. Could bob be used for both things, natural and manmade disasters, Yes but they may contain at least a few different items.

I will be writing more about survival, give some websites, and maybe even share a bit of survival that I have a personal knowledge of. Until then stay safe.

Makes me wonder

I am constantly in awe of the idiocy and plain stupidity of "the masses". Just like sheep, they are taken by the nose and given a little bit of food and they will follow anywhere, walking willingly to slaughter.

If people would not only watch the news, or read the news or listen to the news, but actually think about it, about what it is really being said, what the reason for it being said is, who is saying it. Pick the things that matter the most to you and study the issue. Learn about it from different venues. Don't just listen to one. Learn it, see how it figures into your life and then fight for what you believe.

For me, one of the biggest issues is the 2nd amendment, at least in a way that affects me as a citizen of the USA. I believe it. I honor it. I understand why it was added and why it landed at number 2 in our Bill of Rights, it was not an accident. Those very smart gentlemen that who wrote it placed it in the 2nd spot because they felt the only other thing more important would be freedom of speech. And with the 2nd amendment in place it will protect our other rights. Without the 2nd amendment we have no way to keep the government from having free reign over our country.

Here is the 2nd amendment:

“

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

”

Lawyers, people pro and con for gun rights have fought over almost every word and what the authors were trying to say. There are some simple ways to figure this out. Lets try this. What else did the authors of the second amendment say? How about those that wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, might they say something of import?

"The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors".

Does that quote not say all we need to know? What country in Europe (or the middle east or the far east for that matter) do we look at as the model of freedom and democracy that we as Americans want and expect? Do we want royalty? To have someone that happened to be born to the right parents grow up to be our King or Queen? Do we want the most ruthless, sadistic and brutal tyrant to become the leader of our country? What keeps that from happening? Things like our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. It is not our military. Those that are members of our military fight those enemies outside of our borders, not those within. The first and second Amendments are the teeth that keep us free. It is not a coincidence that they appear first and second in the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech allows us to speak out, even against those in power without fear of being dragged from our beds and never seen being again. The second amendment is what protects the first. With the PEOPLE of the United States having the RIGHT (it is called the Bill of Rights) to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS we as a people can stand up to any one person or group trying to seize power. Don't let the media and the anti-gun crowd lead you to think that the 2nd amendment word "militia" has anything to do with our armed forces. It does not. It is you and me and the others in this Country that feel our freedom is worth fighting for.

Oh and by the way that quote above was written by James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, principal writer of The Federalist Papers, Fourth President of the United States, Mainstream Revolutionary and Militant.

First one Clinton now another

I just finished reading the article linked above (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032501034.html) and am pissed as hell. There is a nasty drug war going on in the border towns between Mexico and the United States. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (the only good I see there is she is not President) is blaming us, read that U.S. as being at least partly to blame. NO we are not to blame for criminals killing each others. It is tragic that many police officers in Mexico have also been murdered but how many of them were innocent? Has no one heard of how corrupt SOME of the police are there? I feel sorry and feel the tragic loss of those truly there as public servents that have been murdered.

Mrs. Clinton says that since there is so much drug use in the USA, and that causes people to smuggle cash and firearms out of the US to Mexico that it is our fault. They also are going to try and use this to re-instate the stupid assault weapon ban that was ended by President Bush. As if banning a rifle in the United States is going to keep freakin murderers in another country from killing other killers. STUPID. STUPID. STUPID. Anyone that does not see that is just as ignorant. Anyone that does not see that it is another attempt to remove OUR right to protect ourself from crime and from the Government should it ever become necessary (If you don't understand that you need to do some research about the 2nd amendment, why it was written and put into our Constitution. It is not 2nd by accident. It is the one ammendment that protects all the others. Of course the first amendment is the one that gives me the right to state my opinions in this or any medium without facing prosecution or perscution.

NO, it is not my fault. It is not my neighbors fault. It is not my co-workers fault. It is the fault of the Government in Mexico not being able to police its own country due to corruption and fear. It is the smugglers that are committing federal crimes on both sides of the borders fault.

Do you feel better now?

How many saw the press conference with President Obama yesterday? If you did, do you feel safer, more sure of your future, feeling good about keeping your home, being able to have some money to retire on so you are not working 5 days a week at burger king just to keep from eating pet food?

One poll I saw showed 3% felt better, 10% felt no change and 87% felt worse about their future. I admit I am not an expert on high finance but there are many things wrong that throwing billions of dollars at them will not fix them.

This country is on the brink. Of what I am not sure, but I do know I am scared as hell. As money gets tighter, as businesses go under, as people find it harder to feed their families anarchy becomes a real danger.

The news is pointing out that the sale of firearms and ammunition have skyrocketed. Is it the lunatic fringe that is buying this up? No, it is you and me. Mr. and Mrs. American. When it comes down to keeping food you have put away for an emergency (such as is coming in this country) and someone tries to take it from you, when it is what is keeping you and your family from starving, you will have to ask yourself a few questions. The lunatic left will have to decide if all their posturing about firearms is going out the window because they now feel they need firearms to protect their family. The anti gun nuts will have to prove themselves wrong i.e. people don't need guns...the 2nd amendment is not about the average citizen having their own guns and get some themselves or end up giving up any commodities that they own. But of course all of the left who think that you should take from the rich and give to the poor, no matter how or why those people are rich or poor will happily give up their food i.e. they are now the rich because they have food and give it to the poor. They should feel wonderful then, truly being poor and hungry and with little chance of defending themselves since guns are horrid living creatures that kill without provocation.

I am a big fan of a man that posts videos on youtube. Much of it has to do with survival, protection and similar issues. When MOST people (myself included) talk about "survival" people picture the crazies in the woods thinking that the government is coming for them and they are going to have huge firefights trying to protect their "way of life". The real truth is that when I speak of survival it means staying healthy, fed, watered, covered, warm and safe until whatever particular emergency ends and things return to normal. Ask the people that survived Katrina if they wished they had began planning for such an event months in advance if that period of time would have been much easier to live through.

Part of surviving will include being prepared for the possibilities of having to defend yourself, your family, or your possesions. I don't mean your DVD player, but it could be your food, or your sleeping bag or water. Loss of something like that could mean the loss of your life. So you damned well better be prepared to defend it. Going back to the guy on youtube. You can see his videos, just search for videos by nutnfancy. There is some great information there. There are 2 themes that run through his videos (by the way most of the videos are reviews of outdoor equipment, first aid kits, etc). One is the term he uses called "WROL". This stands for "without rule of law". This means what happens when the rule of low is not in effect. Think it can't happen? Look at Los Angeles after Rodney King. If you were not prepared before hand you might have lost your store, your merchandise, your home or your life. What is interesting about the riots at that time was that many that were arrested for looting, and beating and firebombing homes and businesses did not know who Rodney King was, or they had not heard the verdict. The cause was that some people that live "wrol" found it an easy time to commit their crimes, it was not a social outcry to racial prejuduce.

The second idea that nutnfancy that he expounds on is called the sheepdog. He feels, and I agree with, that we have an duty to protect those unable to protect themselves ie the sheep. The sheepdog theory is that you do get involved, you do take chances to help others, that you do not hide when something bad happens. If it was your family would you watch them attacked, cut down, raped, robbed and you would remain in hiding IF you had a chance to stop or prevent the attack? Most likely would defend their family. But do you hide if it is not your family? The theory as I see it is that your family, or not your family, you still step in and protect them. Just like you would want someone to step in for your family if you were not there.

People, please understand that the chance of a large portion of this country living WROL at least for a time looms large. When or if that time does come then I hope that each of you is ready for it, ready to protect your family, yourself, and to be the sheepdog for those that will need our help.

Insurance

I have not quite figured out life I guess. 7 months ago we bought my wife a new car since her old car was a piece of crap. We shopped around and ended up buying a 2009 Hyundai (those that want to give me crap about buy american don't bother. I do buy American but not when it is a
low grade product).

The point of this rant is that my wife was involved in an accident 2 weeks ago that totalled her new car. She walked away with nothing more than some bumps and bruises. The people in the other car were unharmed, and we both thank God for that.

It took about 2 weeks to get the estimate done and the paperwork completed the vehicle was ruled a total loss. We just have difficulty following the math. We paid approx $20000.00 for the car. We put down $10000.00 cash and financed the rest. In the 7 months we had the car we made payments of about $1750.00 dollars. After all the finance charges added in we are getting less than $4000.00 dollars back. It is hard to figure. We paid a total of about $11750.00 dollars on a $20000.00 car and get $3000.00 back. So we lost somewhere around $8000.00 for using the car for 7 months. What a f**king rip. But as I keep hearing "Obama will fix it".

This will bring up more of the heat I have gotten both in personal life and online about being a rascist. I am not a rascist. The color of his skin makes absolutely no matter to me. However there is a huge amount of racism surrounding Obama. Is it racist to vote for a candidate because of his race? Yes. Is it racist to feel that now he is in office he will change things to help those oif color? Yes. It is not possible to remove race from the equation. I simply choose to look at other factors to base my like or dislike for him, and I dislike him for who he is, what he stands for, what he believes.

Obama will fix it

All hail the new messiah. Obama will fix everything that is bad in America. We all know the mess that Bush has made. Of course the other possibility is that Gore could have been in office on 9/11 and where would we be then? Probably speaking Arabic and praying 5 times a day as the whistles scream out that it is prayer time. Over dramatic? Maybe. Do I think everything Bush did was right or good? No. But I am happy that Saddam is no longer part of this world.

So much is made that no "WMD's were found when we invaded Iraq. Of course everyone forgets that we tried to let the UN (useless nations?) handle the problem and so Saddam had several months to move them, likely to countries like Syria. There was a lot of evidence of many, many large trucks going in and out of areas thought to hold WMD's. If we had attacked as soon as we could the weapons would have been found. Besides who does not feel safer with a pyscho like Saddam no longer walking this planet? Those who were arrested, and the families of those who
were murdered by him were happy to have him gone.

I have yet to understand how people can even think he did not have things such as chemical weapons. There is absolutely no doubt that he used deadly chemicals on the Kurds. If he did
that to people in his own country what makes anyone think he would not use them against us at his first opportunity.