9th Circuit Rules Individuals Have No Right to Bear Arms

SFGate.com (AP) ^ | May 6, 2003 | David Kravets

[Plainsman]

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday declined to reconsider its December ruling that the Second Amendment affords Americans no personal right to own firearms.

The December decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's law banning certain assault weapons and revived the national gun ownership debate. With Tuesday's action, the nation's largest federal appeals court cleared the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never squarely ruled on the issue.

[tpaine]

martin_fierro:
"Countdown to reversal by USSC".



And if they don't reverse it? Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. My count is 6-3 to uphold it.
26 -FC-


Odds are they will invent some off the wall reason not to hear it, with the approval of the administration.

[Ichneumon]

There is no way the population of this country could resist whomever is in control of the military, if the military will go along with it. The Branch Davidians proved I'm right.

Other posters have addressed several flaws in this statement of yours.

But here's perhaps the key point: The Branch Davidians held off the federal government for *weeks*. And even though they "lost" that battle in the end, that doesn't mean they lost the war. I noted with extreme interest how *very* much more reserved the federal police were in *every* possible standoff with armed groups from there on out.

Never again did they just attack with guns-'n'-tanks a-blazin'. All subsequent standoffs were handled by negotiators from the *start*, and the feds never tried to just "invade" as a first (or even last) strategy.

Why? Two reasons. 1) They lost a lot of troops in the Waco debacle. They weren't enthusiastic about losing more. 2) The public response turned strongly against them as a result of their unnecessary Waco heavy-handedness.

So even though the Davidians "lost" the Waco fight in the end, in sheer numbers, the feds understood that they had hardly *won* it.

The same two dynamics will be at work if the general public (or at least a goodly fraction of it) ever feels armed defiance is called for. Yes, the feds could try to crush it, and many civilians would die, but at what cost to the feds in terms of dead stormtroopers and lowered support (and raised hostility)?

Jefferson understood this well:

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

--Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Col. William S. Smith, (from Paris, November 13, 1787) [Jefferson is referring to Shays' Rebellion, in which farmers in western Massachusetts, led by Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays (c.1747-1825), took over courthouses to protest high state taxes which had driven them into debt and resulted in seizure of their property and/or imprisonment. The unsuccessful rebels were imprisoned, but later pardoned, much in keeping with Jefferson's sentiments expressed here.]

Furthermore, there are several other variations on this point:

1. Waco acted as a "speedbump" which slowed down (and partially reversed) the tendency of federal police to act with increasingly arrogant impunity and heavy-handed deadly force. This is one of the many ways in which an armed populace can *prevent* a government from reaching full-fledged tyranny in the first place -- small-scale skirmishes will from time to time remind the government that it is not free to do whatever it damned well chooses without consequences.

2. If some would-be tyrant doesn't heed the lessons and tries to invoke full-scale tyranny anyway, the number of armed civilians which would fight back would be *immensely* larger than the number of Davidians. The losses to the feds would be huge. In fact, if only a small fraction of armed Americans fought as the Davidians did, it would not be long at all before the government would literally run out of stormtroopers (and how many willing replacements would there be)? This is true even if the citizens "lost" every actual skirmish, as long as they got some payback before they went down.

3. If all else fails, a relative handful of tyrants wouldn't last long against the countless numbers of outraged patriots who would decide that instead of waiting for the "knock on the door" of their own house before fighting back, it was time go personally tyrant-hunting.

In my view, the lesson of the Branch Davidians proves you quite *wrong*.

[gitmo]

That's the key, isn't it? Whether the military will go along with totalitarian rule..
I won't say it will never happen, but I find it very unlikely.

But the origin of the 2nd Amendment was when an armed citizenry overthrew the most powerful military on the planet and formed their own nation. This amendment was inserted into the Constitution to guarantee that this could happen again if needed.

But today, the citizenry has been forbidden access to military armament. This is an elimination of the intention of the Constitution.

[El Gato]

The Second Amendment's "Doomsday Scenario" value died when the federal government first began to own and use weapons that private citizens could not legally own or use.

Isn't that the point of whole discusion? However to say the value died, is more than just a bit too strong, it did get a mite on the peaked side though. However, just as we didn't need to bomb Baghdad into rubble to effect "regime change", it wouldn't necessarily mean going up against the US miliary to do the same thing here, should that ever become necessary. Precision counts.

[skinkinthegrass]

They are all members of the S.D.A....Socialist for a Demo. Amerika...Communists...88 Congresscritters are members.

[Eastbound]

"They aren't supposed to take their lead from anyone. They are supposed to rule on legal matters pertaining to the Constitution: not test the political weather; not see which way the wind is blowing; not check with the traffic reporter."

Exception to the rule here. The last thing the Supremes want is to issue a Second Amendment opinion. I think they will check with the dog catcher and paper boy if they have to to make sure they are on the right side of this. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mulder]

Countdown to reversal by USSC.

The USSC has avoided a definitive ruling on the 2nd amendment like the plauge.

If they affirm the 2nd amendment as an individual Right, it will overturn an entire criminal cartel (seditious anti-gun groups, illegitmate gov't agencies, politicians, some law enforment officers, etc....) who profits from various infringements on that Right. It will take a tremendous amount of power (and money) out of the hands of govt's at all levels.

If they say that the 2nd amendment is not an individual Right, it will merely certify what many Americans have believed for decades. Namely, that our gov't no longer recognizes our Rights-- Rights that the gov't was created to protect. Such a blantant in-your-face statement to patriotic Americans would likely cause certain "irreconcilable differences" to come to a head.

Since the politicians prefer neither scenario, they will do everything in their power to avoid making a decision which brings about either possibility.

[El Gato]

Who can produce enough rhetorical heat to blister the ninth courts behinds?

They don't need a lot of heat, just a nice calm and well researched reversal will blister that portion of their anatomy, which they apparently use to think with, quite nicely.

[Valpal1]

Write your congresscritter NOW!

At the very least, a grassroot groundswell demanding impeachment of the 9th, with give the Supremes a clue as to which opinion they should hold.

Please Freep Congress demanding the impeachment of the 9th.

[A Navy Vet]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784).

"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." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788).

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"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 ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

[45Auto]

O.K., maybe I was a bit harsh. I recognize that we are on the same side; and I often share your pessimism about the missing fortitude and the lack of passion to live free that I see among my fellow citizens, along with what appears, at least superficially, to be a government in the possession of overwhelming power, authority and force. But I don't think it is so easy to predict what might happen down the road if someday, a real tyrant should appear. Nobody in their right mind wants to see a massive civil insurrection in the US or even a minor uprising. The latter would surely be put down rather easily.

But I have no idea what might happen should the Congress or the President (through executive order) actually pass a total ban and confiscation law/edict. A lot of resistance could be mounted that falls short of an actual armed uprising; like refusal to turn in arms, hiding of arms, short-circuiting of civil institutions through other than open armed conflict, etc, etc.

A lot of my fellow RKBA advocates can become quite hot-headed at the suggestion that we would all roll over like sheep; I often share their assertions that I would give up arms only from "my cold, dead hands". I am no spring chicken, but I'm not sure just how much I am prepared to lose or how far I am willing to go should some SOB actually pass a total ban/confiscation scheme.

[husky ed]

Please add me to your list.

[kstewskis]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed, where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest, where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees," Kozinski wrote in papers released Tuesday.

Which is exactly the reason we have the 2nd Amendment.

Those b*stards in the 9th Circus Court of Appeals and their associated minions will pry my .38 off my cold dead fingers before they get away with this.

[El Gato]

And let's all of us raise our hands if we thought Clinton entertained that possibility. I'm SURE he did.

I'm sure he did too. Then he thought about all those guys and gals that he and Her Highness "loathed" so much, plus all the deer hunters, the varmit hunters, the high power rifle competitors, and the few folks who like to do their target practice at 1000+ yards with rifles firing the big 50 catridge, and said to himself. "Naw, if I move to New York and send Hillary back to Washington, I can get plenty of babes and she won't be around to throw ash trays at me, and the Secret Service will keep all the enraged husbands, fathers and brothers more or less at bay. Sounds better than dodging all those gun toting fellers for the rest of my life, which might be kinda short, heh heh"

[bmwcyle]

Court throws out comma in the Constitution

[El Gato]

Under the circumstances postulated, only the dummies would be digging in.

[tpaine]

Reinhardt and his cronies are realling frustrating; they keep reading rights into the Constitution that just aren't there, like the "right" to assisted suicide, but won't enforce the rights that are written into the Constitution, like the Second Amendment or the right to free exercise of religion.
65 -ct-



The right to die as we choose is just as important as the right to live as we choose.

Under the 14th, we cannot be deprived of our right to a private life, liberty under the rule of law, or of private property, -- without due process of law.

'Arms' are the ultimate private property, imo.

Those who scorn of the 14th amendent are abandoning one of our most important constitutional safeguards for our RKBA's..

[ReaganCowboy]

Suggestion number one: Tell all your media contacts that when the Second Amendment goes down, you will work very hard to make sure the First Amendment goes down next.

Suggestion number two: Ask your philosophical opponents just how the hell they think they're going to enforce the Third Amendment?

[El Gato]

So what is the process for citizenry to remove these digraces to the bench?

There is none. Other than to pressure your CongressCritters do the job. They hold the power of impeachment and removal from office over federal judges. They don't exercise it much, and when they do, it's not for violating their oath to "support and defend", but rather for having their hands in the cookie jar, or being caught in bed with an intern of the same sex, or somesuch as that. Constitution? Most of the CongressCritters themselves haven't read it since they took office. They certainly don't evidence any particular reluctance to pass legislation in the face of clear Constitutional prohibition against and/or lack of delegated authority in various schemes.

[Beelzebubba]

"...high-powered, rapid-fire weapons..."

LIE! These are all single-fire guns that shoot only one bullet per trigger pull. And they are relatively low powered rifles compared to ordinary hunting rifles that are permitted in the state. (But they knew that, and just wanted to deceive the weak-minded in their midst.)

"Following California's lead, ...the federal government passed similar or more strict bans."

Another LIE. The federal government "ban" does not come close to the restrictiveness of the California ban, which confiscates legally owned guns, and criminalizes people who were legal, and then did nothing in response to a new law.

[Ichneumon]

Unless I am mistaken, the last time the SCOTUS ruled on the 2A was the Miller case in 1934(?).

1939. 1934 was the year the National Firearms Act was passed which the Miller case was challenging.

The juxt of the Fed's case was that a citizen could only own arms which had military purpose.

Close -- arms which were militarily useful. That is, arms which could be useful *if* you chose to use them in a military context. Your version sounds too much like a requirement that the arms be *employed* for a military purpose before they are protected, which is not the case.

Miller's sawed-off shotgun, at the time, was argued as not meeting military use.

Actually, it wasn't. Nor was it argued as *meeting* military use. This was the problem in the Miller ruling -- because the Justices came to the conclusion that the weapon's military usefulness was the key issue *after* both sides had argued their cases (the Supreme Court listens to arguments, *then* goes to consider the case in chambers), neither side had known to provide any evidence on that issue at *all*.

Miller failed to show, and the judgement was defaulted.

No, actually. His lawyer still argued the case, and a sensible verdict was made. See below.

Hence the stupid rule about a minimum of 18" on a barrel of a shotgun.

Actually, that issue was left hanging, although a lot of people mistakenly read the Miller case as saying that sawed-off shotguns *weren't* militarily useful.

In point of fact, here's the ruling from the Miller decision:

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT POSSESSION OR USE OF A "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH" AT THIS TIME HAS SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH AN INSTRUMENT. CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE.

Some mistakenly read this as, "since there's no evidence that this weapon is militarily useful, we decide that it's not". That's quite incorrect.

Translated from the legalese, this actually plainly says, "since no evidence was presented (either way) on the suitability of the firearm for militia use, and since that's not a matter that's so obvious this Court can simply presume an answer on the matter ('not within judicial notice'), then we literally 'can not say' one way or the other whether it meets such a test".

In short, they said, "we dunno", and they remanded that question back down to the lower court for a determination (which never took place).

Fast forward to today. According to the last (Miller) SCOTUS ruling, if the military uses it, so can we. And yes, today, they have shotguns with barells shorter than 18 inches.

Correct. And not only whether the military *does* actively use it, but whether they *could* use it effectively if they so chose.

[ChemistCat]

The Branch Davidian episode proved that Bill Clinton cared more about what the media said about him than about his power. Someone else might just have had all the media shot and gone ahead and done whatever the heck he wanted to do with no delay. But Clinton was not the man I'm worried about. Maybe he was MARRIED to her, though.

Come to think of it...hmmm. Shooting all the media. Naw.

I actually did something else for a little while, so I have to catch up on this thread again.

[FreedomCalls]

The Davidians lost Waco like the Texans lost the Alamo.

[Jesse]

Well, manners will get you a long way to be sure, but drawing idiotic conclusions to support an untenable position will just get you insults.

[Noumenon]

There is no way the population of this country could resist whomever is in control of the military, if the military will go along with it.

All that Waco proved is that barricade is a bad idea. The fact remains that no politcian can maintain a 300 yard perimeter forever. IT gets eve ntougher for every hundred yards you extend that perimeter. Even an old sob like me can bust milk jugs at 400 yards with an old bolt action Enfield with iron sights. There are those who are way better than I am.

[45Auto]

And I'm pretty certain of one thing: The citizenry of the US might not be able,in the end,to put up enough successful resistance to a government gone bad, but they sure as hell would be able to put up enough to destroy the integrity of the nation. The end result would be a greatly weakened central government with a near total collapse of infra-structure combined with roaming guerilla forces carrying out hit and run missions for an indeterminate time period. Not a pretty picture.

[Trailerpark Badass]

But here's perhaps the key point: The Branch Davidians held off the federal government for *weeks*.

And the only reason any F-Troopers got out alive when they ran out of ammo was because the Davidians voluntarily observed a cease-fire.

[Mulder]

A lot of resistance could be mounted that falls short of an actual armed uprising; like refusal to turn in arms, hiding of arms, short-circuiting of civil institutions through other than open armed conflict, etc, etc.

Even if only one tenth of 1% of gunowners become "active", that is still nearly 100,000 Patriots. Not only that, but many folks who don't "actively participate" will lend support to those who do through various means. It can be as overt as providing food or water, or as covert as playing "gee Officer, I didn't see what direction he went in".

Either way, Americans will resist any unlawful or unconstitutional edicts. It's in our nature.

I am no spring chicken, but I'm not sure just how much I am prepared to lose or how far I am willing to go should some SOB actually pass a total ban/confiscation scheme.

Different folks will make different decisions for different reasons. A husband responsible for his wife and 5 kids may decide one way, and a grandfather who was just been given 3 months to live by his doctor may decide another way.

Until the day comes, it's hard to say how anyone will react. Some of today's most outspoken patriots will be among the first to lick the jackboot and surrender their guns. On the other hand, there will be those who are apathetic today, who will rise to the occasion.

And of course, there will be those who 'stay the course' on the side of Freedom the entire way through.

[Double Tap]

The Branch Davidian standoff in Waco proved two things.

1. That a small group of armed individuals can and did stop a direct attack by government agents cold in it's tracks.

2. That once the attack has been stopped, it is not a good idea to stand around and negotiate.

[Beelzebubba]

"True armed resistance would cripple this country and overwhelm our small military in less than 6 months."

Indeed.

Imagine Muhammed and Malvo. Times 100. That's the Irish Republican Army.

Now multiply THAT by 1000. That is America when the politicians stop pretending that they are on the side of liberty.

[freedumb2003]

Is there ANY instance in the Constitution or Bill of Rights in which the language or context even remotely suggests that the phrase "right of the people" is intended to mean "right of the states"?

10th Amendment (my personal favorite):

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, this is beautifully ambiguous like so much of the Constitution, but what it clarifies is the Constitution is Exclusionary meaning that anything the Govt. can't think of is OK. This is the most critical part of our system of government.

Now that my little lecture is done, I completely agree with your (and most right thinker's) analysis of the 2nd Amendment. It is clear that the Founding Fathers (especially, God bless 'im, T. Jefferson) wanted to make sure the government should never be more powerful than the collective might of the people. A very realistic portrayal can be seen in the movie Red Dawn.

[Beelzebubba]

"The Allies airdropped simple weapons into occupied France..."

"...along with instructions..."

[colorado tanker]

The right to die as we choose is just as important as the right to live as we choose.

The point is not to debate the question of a "right to die." The point is the Constitution is silent on this issue as it is on the abortion issue and a million other issues left to the legislatures. The Constitution puts the decision of policy questions like this in the hands of elected representatives of the people, not unelected judges. Oregon's right to die law is constitutional, just as is Colorado's prohibition against assisted suicide.

The distinction between the "right to die" issue and the right to keep and bear arms is that, like the other rights in the Bill of Rights, the Founders viewed the right as so fundamental to republican government that they chose to write it into the Constitution, to make sure no future legislature would attempt to take that right away.

What most people don't get is that activist judges don't just create rights, they also take them away, as the Ninth Circuit is attempting to do with the Second Amendment

[Beelzebubba]

"But keep in mind that most of the members of our military are also US citizens."

Be careful there. ALL people are capable of evil, for their own reasons, or due to persuasion by authority. Most of those in the SS were also German citizens.

[El Gato]

The juxt of the Fed's case was that a citizen could only own arms which had military purpose. Miller's sawed-off shotgun, at the time, was argued as not meeting military use.

Actually it was even less than that. The Court ruled that the lower court should not have ruled that possesion of a sawed off shotgun was constitutionally protected absent some evidence to that effect, they only suggested that military utility was one such criteria for such protection. Hoever, a few years later the first circuit in Cases stated that almost any firearm would have some military use, pointing to the underground and guerilla movements by then active in Europe opposing the Nazies. So they said that the SC must not have meant that the "no military/militia use" was the only valid test for Constitutionality of legal restrictions on arms possesion.

This same arguement could have been made, along with various documented examples of regular US troops using short barrelled shotguns, if Miller hadn't been dead and his co-defendent hadn't already plead guilty in return for a reduction in sentence to time served.

[Navy Patriot]

So how many communists in favor of the destruction of the US

Just another concealed DemoRat litmus test for the bench.

[sarasmom]

re 101, and chemist-re all of your posts

The Military of the USA consists of an all volunteer force, sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the USA.
Not any particular elected "government"-the constitution.
In case you are unfamiliar with DOD training, or military matters, allow me to introduce to you the concept of a lawfull order.It is mentioned in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.(UCMJ)
Servicemembers give up certain constitutional protections,(that is part of the reason military service is deemed a sacrifice)and swear to abide by the UCMJ, for the duration of their service.
George Bush is CINC, but should he, or any other CINC, or any officer or NCO ,issue an unlawfull order,any who comply are subject to UCMJ courtmarshall.
Any and all lawfull orders must be followed.No unlawfull order,followed, can be excused by claiming to follow orders.
The Governor of any particular state may call upon the State National Guard to act in an emergency, IAW state laws regarding such use of force.
The Feds have no such authority to act within the confines of the USA.It would constitute an unlawfull order.
The military takes such quaint restraints a hell of a lot more seriously than the average politician elected to public office.
Perhaps we, the people, should toy with the idea of a mandatory basic training type system for publically elected officials, prior to allowing them to "serve" in office.
It would be interesting to note the washout rates, and how many emergency elections would be needed to keep elected seats filled, on all levels of government, if minimum competancy standards were required.

[cavtrooper21]

MY point exactly! and I really don't need firearms to create all kinds of damage to a streched thin military supply and logistics structure. If the "blue" team tries to use martial law and the military to enforce it they will be in real trouble in my neck of the woods. And I'm just one middle-aged fat guy with a brain and the will to use it... There are a lot of us out there.
Yamamoto said it best(I'm sorry if the qoute isn't perfect): "... I fear we have awoken the sleeping dragon..."

[Lurker]

You're wrong on two counts my friend.

Regards,

L

[Dr.Deth]

How much would it really take to saw off California and tow it to China? Any effort would be worth it.

[Beelzebubba]

"Miller failed to show, and the judgement was defaulted."

"No, actually. His lawyer still argued the case, and a sensible verdict was made. See below."

I missed it. My understanding is that Miller was present at the trial, where the case was dismissed. But the feds appealed, but Miller had long since disappeared and there was no representation of his side at the Supreme Court.

[monkeyshine]

How is it that the 9th circuit can be so stupid, shortsighted, and blatantly politically biased? This is just insane. Justice Kozinski has it exactly right, and put it to the justices bluntly, yet the vast majority of them simply covered up their ears and said "nanananananana".

[boris]

"Clinton wouldn't have survived a third term had he appointed himself king. With all the people taking aim at him he was lucky to survive the first two terms."

Remember the guy who flew an airplane into the White House lawn during Clinton's first administration?

I was standing out there with a big sign: "AIM, DAMMIT!"

Just kidding.

--Boris

[Knightsofswing]

I have a thought on this;
According to the second admentment. Who is the well regulated militia?

My answer is

WE ARE!!

And when the tryants come a knocken I' give my guns up;


Little pionty parts first and over my dead cold moldering body!!!

sic semper tranyis!!!

[cavtrooper21]

Howdy Bro....
Fighting Spirit... yea, I guess so...
But I look at it like this. If My civil rights are removed, suspended, whatever, I have lost the most precious thing I have ever had, my freedom. If I fight, I have nothing to lose but my life, which is meaningless with out that freedom.
I hope and pray that this never happens, that sanity will prevail and common sense will rule again. But I will also teach my son everything I know, including what it means to be free and how to defend that freedom. I will keep my saber bright and keen, my rifle ready and my ammo dry.. Let them come!!!
Scouts Out!!!!