– Tenche Coxe, letter to James Madison during adoption of the Bill of Rights in the United States Congress (1789)
“The power of the sword is in the hands of Congress? My friends and countrymen, it is not so; for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the Militia? They are not ourselves as politicians and lawmakers. They are those who have elected us into our positions and entrusted us with the power of preserving and carrying out their wishes. Congress has no power to disarm the Militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the Federal or State governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
– Tenche Coxe, letter to James Madison during adoption of the Bill of Rights in the United States Congress (1789)
0 Comments
This report is going to make you mad. It made me mad just sitting in IGO’s office typing away at the keyboard. The Iowa House adjourned for the year early this morning – but not before killing your 2nd Amendment rights for another year.
To really understand the depths of the betrayal you need to understand the details. By now you know that House Leadership, Republican House Leadership specifically, sent Stand- Your-Ground and Constitutional Carry legislation to die in their handpicked Judiciary committee after Rep. Shaw filed these bills for us in January. At the same time, our bill to remove the current law that makes you a criminal for teaching your children to shoot a handgun prior to age 14 was killed in the House Public Safety Committee at the hands of Chairman Clel Baudler. We have discussed at length why it’s important to make these legislators vote on gun bills – to identify who is pro-gun and who is not. That’s why we worked with Rep. Shaw to add these bills to the Standings Bill where they could be debated at the end of the session – ensuring that you and I would be able to get a vote. This is standard practice in Des Moines. As the last bill of the year, the number of amendments filed onto the Standings Bill can require DAYS of debate to get through. The minute the Standings Bill was filed this year our amendments were attached to them. We then urged you to call and email your Representative and insist that he/she vote in favor of those amendments when they came up for a vote. And call you did. We received copies of emails from dozens of Representatives who told you that they were going to vote in favor of your gun rights. We also received copies of emails from legislators who are hostile to your rights who stubbornly declared that they would vote against your rights. Everyone at the Capitol was nervous about this, especially the anti-gunners who didn’t want to be on record opposing your gun rights. For some time, we were hearing rumors that the House leadership team wasn’t going to allow any pro-gun amendments onto the Standings Bill. Insiders were reporting that in an attempt to kill our gun bills, Speaker Paulsen and Majority Leader Upmeyer were going to kill EVERY amendment by running a “strike- after” amendment on the entire Standings Bill. We know this is can be tedious, but you need to follow this in order to understand what just happened to your gun rights. To bypass our amendments, Paulsen and Upmeyer ran an amendment to the Standings Bill to gut the entire bill and replace it with another, thereby killing all of those amendments in the process. We were aware of this possibility, as was Rep. Shaw, and we were ready for them. The moment the “strike-after” amendment was filed, Rep. Shaw re-filed our two gun bills to the amended version of the Standings Bill. Now understand, the decision to bypass all the amendments is shocking – the majority party virtually ALWAYS allows for debate at the end of the session on the Standings Bill. So already they were going to extreme lengths to bury your gun rights. But then they did it again. They re-re-filed the Standings Bill in a desperate attempt to stop us. After Rep. Shaw re-filed the amendments, it became obvious to all that we were not playing games, and were determined to get a vote on these pro-gun bills. So, in a desperate ploy to ensure that there were no gun bills voted on, Speaker Paulsen and Leader Upmeyer quietly filed ANOTHER “strike-after” amendment while holding the Republicans in a caucus room – not telling their rank and file legislators what they were doing. Then, the moment the second “strike-after” was filed, they reconvened almost immediately, denying Rep. Shaw the time it would take to re-re-file the amendments. We couldn’t believe it. We’ve heard of amendments being physically locked in drawers so they can’t be filed, we’ve heard of all manner of threats and intimidation being used to keep legislators from filing amendments in the first place, but to see not one but two “strike-after” amendments filed was simply outrageous. As a result, no vote was cast on Constitutional Carry legislation or the legislation to remove the age limit on when parents can teach their children to shoot a handgun. Already, legislators who are known to be anti-gun are reassuring their voters who are members of IGO, of how pro-gun they are – knowing that there was no vote to prove them liars. Many of you want names; you want to know who is good and who is bad when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. We are going to have to rely on candidate surveys for that – which we’ll be discussing more in the future. In the meantime, realize that the entire Republican leadership team in the House worked in concert to kill any chance of these bills coming up. In a similar way, Senate Democratic leadership voted to kill the suppressor bill last night also – but at least they brought it up for a vote so you and I know where they stand! These leadership team members are the ones to hold accountable in the House – as well as all no votes in the Senate. Of course, this email would not be complete in painting the picture without a special mention of the action taken last night by newly minted Speaker Pro-Tem Matt Windschitl. Windschitl, a Republican leader from Western Iowa, has long painted himself as the hero to the 2nd Amendment in Iowa. His family owns a gun store and he has sponsored many pro-gun bills over the years in the legislature. Yet one thing is constantly lacking – a willingness to actually do the hard work of advancing the controversial bills. Sure the bills that are relatively straight forward he’ll act on, but anything that’s tough, he’ll run from. For years insiders have reported that Rep. Windschitl simply files bills to get the grassroots credit for filing them, intending all along to do little with them. Lobbyists, legislators, and voters in his own district have long suspected this. Last night erased any debate. Matt Windschitl, long seeking to move up in his career in the Iowa House, was elected to be the Speaker Pro-Tem of the House. Understand how this works. That is an elected position, and the 100 members of the House are the voters. To get those votes, you can’t rock the boat. Ever. You must do the will of the leadership no matter what. For Rep. Windschitl last night, that meant that one of the very first things he did as the Speaker Pro-Tem, was to sit in the Speaker’s chair and rule Constitutional Carry out of order! What’s more, with IGO member Nathan Gibson and his daughters looking on (the ones who were being taught to shoot by their father, and forced to leave the range they shoot on since they are not 14) Windschitl went on to kill the bill that would fix the age limit issue too! This is what the “pro-gun champion” in Des Moines did last night to secure his role as the Speaker Pro-Tem. As one IGO member said on the phone with us this morning, “This is what he did to get his 30 pieces of silver.” We’ll have a more complete session wrap-up email coming out before long. This fight has just begun. IGO is aggressively surveying and meeting with candidates state wide, our PAC is preparing to get involved in House primaries which take place next month, and we’re readying our election program for the Fall where we’ll be exposing anti-gunners in their districts through direct mail, internet advertising, email blasts, and more so that gun owners in Iowa can be informed as they head to the polls. Frankly, if you’re mad at the events of last night, help us. IGO is working on our program to hold these politicians accountable in the House and Senate. If there is no price to be paid for bad political behavior, this will continue. Thank you for your activism this year – we did not lose any of our gun rights – and we’re going to hold them accountable come election time for those that tried to tamper with them. For Freedom, Aaron Dorr Executive Director P.S. Last night we witnessed a massive betrayal in the Republican controlled House, and they repeatedly altered the final bill of the year in an effort to strip out IGO’s pro-gun amendments. The Speaker of the House Kraig Paulsen, Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, and newly minted Speaker Pro-Tem Matt Windschitl are now willing to do whatever it takes to keep gun owners from knowing who is pro-gun and who is not – all in an effort to maintain their majority status. Many thanks are in order to pro-gun champ Tom Shaw (R-Laurens), who fought valiantly against his own party when needed, in an effort to protect and defend our gun rights here in Iowa. Now as IGO looks ahead to the primary elections, surveying all the candidates here in Iowa, and ramping up for a massive round of educational mail, email, radio ads, and internet advertising to inform Iowans on where the candidate stand come election time – we can certainly use your help. Tom Hoefling:
"Today my representative, Tom Shaw, is forcing his colleagues in the about-to-adjourn Iowa House to vote on two critical amendments: Life at Conception and Constitutional Carry. The Republican "leaders" of that body have buried both throughout the session, but because of Tom's courage and commitment, the world will get to see today exactly where they all stand. Iowans, pay attention!" Tom Hoefling: "Way to go Iowa Gun Owners, and all of my fellow Iowans who love liberty enough to fight for it, at every level of government!" Iowa Gun Owners
“I can’t believe how quickly the members of Iowa Gun Owners stepped in and helped us with this local problem. Tell them that gun owners in George extend a huge ‘Thank you’ to them and a bunch of us will be joining IGO immediately!” This was the call that I got this morning from multiple residents of the city of George, IA, who were mobilized yesterday en masse with the help of Iowa Gun Owners as the George City Council was poised to vote, today, on a proposal to ban all defensive weapons on city property. But unlike some of city bans that we’ve seen, this small town in NW IA has a true “Boss Hogg” mentality as the language had a carve-out for elected officials like the very City Council members who would be voting to end your ability to defend your family! That’s right, “elected officials” would still be allowed to carry at the town hall, town pool, town baseball complex, etc. But the taxpayers who pay to build and maintain these city properties would have to hope that a deputy could make it to town in time to save them should a violent criminal attack them. Read this story at iowagunowners.org ... Tom Hoefling December 31, 2013 "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." Recently, we got the news that Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has set up a new political action committee in our state, in preparation for the 2014 and 2016 elections, for the purpose of advancing his anti-Right to Keep and Bear Arms agenda. I know I speak for many Iowans when I say to him, simply, “Go back to New York.” In Iowa, we generally go out and shoot WITH our neighbors, not AT them. That’s because we understand the value of innocent human life, and that guns are nothing more than the physical tools, the implements, we need for defending ourselves, our families, our property, and, ultimately, our liberties and rights. Gun violence, and violence overall, is nothing more than a symptom of the moral breakdown of a people and a society. It has little to do with which physical objects are available to commit those criminal acts. Take away the guns and an immoral, violent people will bash each others’ brains in with a rock. No matter how much Mr. Bloomberg brags in the press about how safe it is in New York City, as compared to other big cities in America, our murder rate in Iowa is miniscule compared to his hometown, or Chicago, or Detroit, or Washington, DC, the places with the most draconian, unconstitutional, restrictions on the people’s gun rights. Most of our Iowa counties go decades without a single incidence of firearms-related murder, despite the fact that we are quite well-armed here, thank you very much. On a merely pragmatic level, why in the world would we listen to him? More importantly and to the point, our Iowa Constitution asserts quite explicitly, right out of the gate, in Section One of our Bill of Rights, that: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain INALIENABLE rights--among which are those of enjoying and DEFENDING life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and DEFENDING property, and pursuing and obtaining SAFETY and happiness.” Our most sacred and important rights are not open to negotiation or compromise, because the word INALIENABLE means something: inalienable Our state motto remains: “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” There are still large numbers of us who mean that. Any Iowa political figure that is foolish enough to find common cause with Bloomberg will almost certainly suffer a crushing political defeat, no matter how much money he expends on their behalf. And every prospective 2016 presidential candidate who comes courting in the months and years ahead will find that their political fortunes are completely dependent on whether they side with him in this matter, or with We the People of Iowa and our natural, God-given, inalienable rights. I’ll close with the wise words of one of the most distinguished New Yorkers in history, who understood exactly what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, in fact, all about: “Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped. ... This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but 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 the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.” Tom Hoefling is a Republican candidate for Iowa governor in 2014. You can check him out at http://www.tomhoefling.com.
If you agree with Tom Hoefling, and are committed to the preservation of our most important liberties and rights, please join the Iowa Leadership and Accountability Project today! We need you! http://www.tomhoefling.com/join-ilap.html “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. … it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”
– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772 "Without firearms there would be no United States of America.
There wouldn't have been a Jamestown or a Plymouth. There could not have been any colonies established in Virginia, or Massachusetts, or anywhere else. Without guns you would probably be a feudal slave in Europe, or a tribal slave in Africa, or the slave of some Asian despot or other. If your family hadn't been erased long ago. Thank God for guns, and those who are willing to wield them in defense of Life and Liberty." -- Tom Hoefling by Tom Hoefling The sight of the representatives of various national gun groups sitting down to negotiate with the Vice-President of the United States over more firearms restrictions was infuriating. What were they even doing there? What is there to negotiate? The terms of surrender? Why do these people always think they need a "seat at the table"? Don't they realize that there are some tables you should never sit at? Sorry, but what Sam Adams called the first law of nature is not negotiable. We either maintain our God-given, unalienable, natural right to self-defense or America has ceased to be. America's Founders on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. … it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” – Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772 “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them.” – Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (February 6, 1788) “... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...” – Samuel Adams, Constitutional Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 (also attributed to A Federal Farmer, the anti-federalist) “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress; Federal Hall, New York City (January 8, 1790) “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will respect the less important and arbitrary ones... 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, quoted from Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishment, 1764; translated by Jefferson and copied into his Commonplace Book of great quotations. “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms ...” – Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for Virginia; June 13, 1776 “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them …”. – Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 “...in this country, every man is a militia-man...”. – Thomas Paine, The American Crisis series, # 9, dated June 9, 1780 “...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” “No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, from debates during the Constitutional convention (later quoted with approval by George Washington), as quoted in Elliot’s Debates, 1836 “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 (in the Virginia ratifying convention) “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. 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.” – James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, Federalist # 46 “[A] government resting on a minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” -- James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution “...the loyalists in the beginning of the late war, who objected to associating, arming and fighting, in defense of our liberties, because these measures were not constitutional. A free people should always be left... with every possible power to promote their own happiness.” - James Monroe, President of the United States “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 28 “Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped...” “...an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but 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 the use of arms who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 29 “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” -- Benjamin Franklin “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people.” – George Mason, from debates during the Virginia state ratifying convention “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own 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?” -- George Mason “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 pretense, 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 the unjust and oppressive.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (October 17, 1787) “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. The Constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include...all men capable of bearing arms. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” “... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.” – Richard Henry Lee, Letters From The Federal Farmer (1788) “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit.” – Richard Henry Lee, proposed by the Virginia delegation to the Constitutional Convention (defining the phrase “well-regulated militia” which was used exactly in the final draft of the Second Amendment); and suggested in their state ratification debates, June 1788, to clarify the right. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” – Fisher Ames, letter to F.R. Minoe (June 12, 1789) “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals...”. – Samuel Bryan, during debates on ratification of the Constitution in the Pennsylvania assembly “The power of the sword is in the hands of Congress? My friends and countrymen, it is not so; for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the Militia? They are not ourselves as politicians and lawmakers. They are those who have elected us into our positions and entrusted us with the power of preserving and carrying out their wishes. Congress has no power to disarm the Militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the Federal or State governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, letter to James Madison during adoption of the Bill of Rights in the United States Congress (1789) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." -- The Declaration of Independence Tom Hoefling
For more than forty years, the Left in this country, along with their enablers in law and politics, in both "major" parties, have been doing real violence to the most helpless and defenseless among us, the children in the womb, dealing out physical death and dismemberment to more than fifty million innocent, spotless souls. They have as far as those little ones and their bloodlines are concerned destroyed the foundational American principles of equality before the law and due process. They have made a mockery of every stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, especially its ultimate stated purpose, which is to 'secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.' They have also made deep incursions into the the God-given, unalienable rights of the rest of us. They have worked overtime to try to destroy the foundational God-given institution of our civilization, which is the natural family. Wherever possible, they have trampled on the most basic intrinsic natural right of all, the right and duty of the people to defend themselves, their families, their communities, and their nation. If the Left had had its way in recent decades the American people would already be completely disarmed and helpless. Who can doubt this? But so far they have not had their way. We are not disarmed. We are not helpless, like the innocent children of the Left who have died in the name of "choice." There are at least one hundred million of us with ready access to the basic tools needed to protect and preserve ourselves, our liberty, and our posterity, should that become necessary. And we do not lack the will to protect our own. Everyone would do well to remember this. "Not only will we fight to remove every single politician from office who attacks our God-given, unalienable, equal rights to life and liberty, including our right to keep and bear arms, we will also oppose every craven, cowardly politician who remains silent in the face of this encroaching anti-God, anti-American, anti-life, anti-liberty tyranny. Speak now or get out of the way and go home."
-- Tom Hoefling, January 5, 2013 MinutemanRKBA.com
Tom Hoefling For four hundred years in this country, my family has had a well-earned reputation for being well-armed, and of not being afraid to use those arms if life, liberty, property, or their communities were threatened. I'm a descendent of Alice Proctor, the wife of Virginia ancient planter John Proctor. In the Indian attacks and massacres of 1622 in which as many as a third of the Virginians were killed, John was in England, and she and her household held off the savages for a month. The British officers threatened to burn down the Proctor Plantation if she didn't remove herself from the frontier back to Pace's Paines, which she then had to do, but the Indians knew better than to ever come anywhere close to her or her family again. A few generations later, at the start of the Revolution, five Proctor brothers, including my forebear Little Page Proctor, were part of the Virginia militia that secured the NW wilderness against the British-allied tribes. They were among the forty men with Daniel Boone who held off more than 400 Indians for ten days at Boonesborough, in what became Kentucky. They knew that when it came down to it they had to depend on themselves and their neighbors, not on some far-off government. Anyone who thinks it is fundamentally any different now is fooling themselves. We will NOT disarm. Our natural rights, the right of self-defense being foremost, were given to us by God Himself, and Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein are NOT welcome to them. “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." - Samuel Adams "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." - The Declaration of Independence "[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788 The Second Amendment IS pro-life.
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature...In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." -- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists Tom Hoefling: "Men who will only be restrained by the will and force of good men who are armed"12/15/2012 "When a liberal sees a firearm they see a fearful weapon that they wish only to be in the hands of government, naively ignoring the obvious facts that:
1) Criminals are never going to follow their fond wishes, 2) Officers of government are most often not going to be there for them in a crisis, 3) We the People are the government in America, the sovereign, and the sovereign must possess the physical means to protect their people and their country from all enemies, foreign or domestic. When a conservative sees a firearm he sees a primary implement of liberty, one that can be misused by evil men, of course, but that is, nonetheless, an indispensable tool, because this is a fallen world which contains many evil men, men who will only be restrained by the will and force of good men who are armed." -- Tom Hoefling, December 15, 2012 Big win for gun-rights groups: Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons
Chicago Sun-Times SPRINGFIELD-In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois' Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry. "The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. In a split opinion (see below), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling in two cases downstate that upheld the state's longstanding prohibition against carrying concealed weapons. Illinois is the only state with an outright prohibition on concealed carry. Read more at Illinois Sun-Times ... Romney Renews His Support For Gun Control: "That's the kind of legislation I like" - July 23, 20127/27/2012 FreeRepublic.com
NBC Transcript Xzins ...The latest possible trial balloon came this past Monday in an interview with Larry Kudlow. In that discussion, Romney relates the situation in Aurora, Colorado to his time in Massachusetts when he was able to ban weapons such as the AR15, one of America's favorite sporting rifles. Romney...the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights,...Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, that’s the kind of legislation I like.(http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=11599&NewsAreaId=2) Romney has given us other trial balloons in recent months. First, he consistently affirms RomneyCare, the massive government intrusion into healthcare that was the blueprint for Obama's massive government intrusion into healthcare. Sadly, Romney's health care plan included many items absolutely unacceptable to social conservatives. His continuing support for his program has many conservatives legitimately wondering if he intends merely to "fix" ObamaCare. Perhaps he thinks it would be better if just a little more in his own image. Next, and only this past April, was Mitt Romney's support for gay couples. Compounding that problem was his assertion that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. There are compounding problems with that, too. Mitt Romney has long had a special relationship with the gay-agenda wing of both parties. He has in the past given those advocates special assurances that he is the man they want in office. Just this past week, when Obama permitted military uniforms to be worn in a gay pride parade, there was no protest from Mitt Romney that this author can find. (Since pro-life chaplains can't march in pro-life parades in uniform, one wonders at the double standard.) To cap this off, during the debates, Romney indicated he was just fine with permitting open homosexuality in our military. Now we have the governor who instituted strict gun control on "offensive weapons" reaffirming that decision. But that is not the critical part of the message. Mitt Romney actually said on Monday -- this past Monday -- that when he can get legislators to agree on gun control, then "that's the kind of legislation I like."! I can't help but dissect "that's the kind of legislation I like." What does that mean? Does it mean he's all in favor of signing gun control legislation if he can get legislators to originate it? That way, of course, he wouldn't be the only one taking the heat. Does that mean that he doesn't really have a core value opposing gun control, that he'll sign on if he's not the only one with his neck on the line? Trial Balloon or undisciplined comment? You be the judge. But, you also better be careful, and make sure Romney never has a large enough group of RINOs to team with democrats to bring him gun control legislation. After all, "That's the kind of legislation I like." ----- A reminder about who it is we're dealing with: Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1..."These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." moran.senate.gov
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) today led 50 senators in expressing grave concern about the dangers posed to Americans’ Second Amendment rights by the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. The 51 senators notified [Alleged] President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of their intent to oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding American gun owners. The opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from Senate passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require approval of two-thirds of Senators present to be ratified. In the letter, the senators wrote: “As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure – if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference – that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard.” “Our country’s sovereignty and the rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations,” Sen. Moran said. “Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.” “The NRA, our four million members and the tens of millions of law-abiding Americans who own firearms will never surrender our right to keep and bear arms to the United Nations,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “That is why the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been met with the full opposition of the NRA. We are grateful for the efforts of these senators, led by Senator Jerry Moran, to oppose this encroachment of international tyranny.” The U.N. conference on the Arms Trade Treaty is taking place this week in New York City. In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama Administration reversed the positions of the two previous Administrations and voted for the U.S. to participate in negotiating the Arms Trade Treaty, purportedly to establish “common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms.” However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the Arms Trade Treaty could restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in the United States. The letter was signed by U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Max Baucus (D-MT), John Barrasso (R-WY), Mark Begich (D-AK), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Richard Burr (R-NC), Bob Casey (D-PA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Rand Paul (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jon Tester (D-MT), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA), Jim Webb (D-VA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS). The full text of the signed letter is below and the PDF version can be found here. ### "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
-- George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788 "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."
-- Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
-- Benjamin Franklin |
Dial in to talk to
|