I'd Rather Not, Thanks...

Giving credit where credit is due, NewsMax.com reports:

In a development first covered Tuesday morning by "Fox and Friends" host E.D. Hill, the report says:

"Heyward recalled speaking to Rather on Monday, September 6, and being told that the story was thoroughly vetted. Heyward also told the Panel that Rather said he had not 'been involved in this much checking on a story since Watergate.'” [page 104]

The only head left unrolled at CBS after the Memogate debacle, Dan Rather has pretty much represented himself throughout this as right, Right, Right, Right! Not politically, of course, because he obviously believes anyone to the right of Marx is still too Republican.

Unfortunately for Rather, he's been flat out busted and a couple of things finally came into play. First we get to see what media whores really do when TSHTF. They point their dirty little fingers and people start to go down. Rather only made it as far as he has for two reasons. One, the network thought it could weasel out of looking like it was run by a collection of idiots (first wrong assumption) and two, the network really cannot legally risk admitting Rather knew it was completely a put-up job - and make no mistake about it, it was - because of the legal hassles that could have enused. And still may.

Two and a half months after the incredibly stupid broadcast, Rather announced his retirement. Two months later, the report comes out and heads roll. Now with four people fired, we only need to wait two more months before Rather is gone. Unfortunately for See-BS, they'll need just a tad longer to regain any measure of credibility.

The simple fact of the matter is, Rather's ego outgrew his abilities and he took the big fall. I'll be happy to see him gone, but I have got to ask the Decison Makers at headquarters, "What the hell are you thinking? Do you boobs there behind the big, unblinking, myopic eye really think your credibility will be improved by hiring Katie Couric?"

One request I do have for the Rathers, Michael Moore and his oily ilk, the Power Mad Soros Group types and the rest of the Useful Idiots out there.

Will you please find something else to do with your time and let the elective process go forward as honestly as it can? Let the little guys among us make mistakes and the few of you knotheads that think you're so damned much smarter and richer that you ought to be able to decide who our presidents should be just shut up and leave us the hell alone. I, for one, am sick to death of you.

And I am not alone.

Funny bit - read it for your grin for the day:

Judge Judy talks to Dan and Ms. Mapes.

Detroit - Michigan's Shameful Reality

Honest to goodness, I think there's something in the water in SE Michigan.

Don't get me wrong - I am a huge fan of Michigan and if it were not for the deadly winters, I would never consider leaving (unless or until they go from Shall Issue on carrying a concealed firearm) but there is no doubt that we have our own fair share of absolute idiots. I'm going to give you three examples from this morning's news.

Police: Armed And Dangerous Man Steals Patrol Car

Troopers Were Transferring Man To Jail
POSTED: 7:17 am EST January 17, 2005

A man who is considered armed and dangerous has reportedly escaped authorities in a Michigan State Police cruiser.

State troopers arrested John Metzelburg in Groveland Township at about 11 p.m. Sunday at an area bar for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, according to Local 4. The troopers were in the process of transferring him to the Oakland County Jail when he escaped and stole the cruiser.

Metzelburg was spotted driving south on Dixie Highway.

Anyone with information on the stolen cruiser should call police.

Refresh this page for updates.

Stay with Local 4 News and ClickOnDetroit.com for the latest developments.

Where, really, do you think there is to hide, Mr. Metzelburg? The LEO Community, and pretty much every citizen out there, wants to see you captured. And those who don't for strictly altruistic values, want the reward that will be paid.

And then we have:

Detroit Police Officer Convicted Of Drug Conspiracy

POSTED: 10:08 pm EST January 14, 2005
UPDATED: 10:27 pm EST January 14, 2005

DETROIT -- A federal jury has convicted a Detroit police officer of stealing illegal drugs and giving them to users who agreed to be filmed for his commercial Web site.

Ceiere Campbell was found guilty Friday of distributing crack cocaine and heroin and conspiracy to distribute the drugs.

Prosecutors said that between June 2002 and May 2003, Campbell stole the drugs from police raids.

The officer's Web site, StreetsIllustrated.com, no longer exists.

Campbell was suspended without pay after his arrest. Police said Friday's conviction means he'll be fired.

... and that he will forever be known as a dumbass....

And then we have the mayor, that oh-so altruistic jackass - he's taking a "ten percent" pay-cut because the City is in such Dire straits but he'll darned well make up for that....


Report: City Leases Luxury SUV During Budget Crisis

Deputy Police Chief Says Vehicle Purchased For Undercover Police Work

POSTED: 6:49 pm EST January 14, 2005
UPDATED: 7:54 pm EST January 14, 2005

Just two days after Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick announced major cuts to help eliminate a growing deficit, allegations are surfacing about the city's lease of a luxury sport utility vehicle, Local 4 reported.

The 2005 Lincoln Navigator, with a price tag of $57,000, was leased by the city through the Bob Maxey Lincoln-Mercury dealership on Jefferson Avenue in Detroit.

A 2005 Lincoln Navigator was leased by the city of Detroit with the words "mayor's lease" on the agreement.

Maxey told Local 4 that in December, a police officer came to the dealership inquiring about leasing a Navigator. Maxey said the officer told him he had a budget and wanted to sign for a one-year lease. An agreement was made on a two-year lease for the amount of $24,995, according to Maxey.

Local 4 learned that the lease deal has the words "mayor's lease" on it. Kilpatrick would not answer questions Friday regarding allegations that his wife, Carlita, had been driving the vehicle.

Deputy Mayor Anthony Adams denied that Carlita Kilpatrick ever drove the SUV.

"That vehicle was not used by the first lady, period," Adams said.

City officials claim the SUV was purchased to use in police undercover operations.

"To infiltrate that world, you have to look like a drug dealer," said James Tate, second deputy police chief.

Police said when local news organizations started asking questions about the Navigator, they decided it would no longer be safe to use it for undercover work.

When asked where the vehicle is now, Tate said, "It's still within our fleet. I don't know where it is exactly."

Tate said general funds were not used to purchase the SUV, but he wouldn't say if the money came from drug forfeiture proceeds, Local 4 reported.

An undisclosed source told Local 4 that other police departments typically work out shorter-term arrangements with car dealerships when leasing a vehicle for undercover work. The city of Detroit is apparently stuck with a vehicle it is no longer using until December 2006, the station reported.

Maxey said the price the city paid for the lease is a competitive rate.

Honest to gosh, this mayor simply cannot give up. He is definitely in my Top Five List of Really Bad Things that have happened to Detroit and its surrounding environs. The man is ghetto trash.

The Top Five List of RBT for Detroit, in no particular order:

• Coleman Young
• The Riots and the subsequent failure of motivation to recover and rebuild
• The almost total failure of the Detroit Public School system
• Affirmative Action
• Kwame Kilpatrick, Ghetto Mayor from Hell - bling, bling

Police: Storeowner Fires In Defense; Robbery Suspect Dies

Teen Suspects Charged As Adults

POSTED: 1:03 pm EST January 14, 2005
UPDATED: 1:20 pm EST January 14, 2005

A 17-year-old robbery suspect died late Thursday or early Friday after he suffered a gunshot wound when a storeowner fired in self-defense, police said.

Rashawn Edward Linnear, of Detroit, was armed with a .45 caliber handgun when he and two other teens -- 16-year-old Miguil Andrew Jackson and 15-year-old Deandre Lamar Benson -- entered the Oakland Party Store on Ten Mile Road in Southfield at about 9 p.m. Wednesday, Local 4 reported.

Storeowner Maurice Gorges fired a shot in self-defense after a 17-year-old robber pointed a gun at him, police said.

The three ordered the store's owner, 51-year-old Maurice Gorges, and a customer to the floor at gunpoint, police said.

Gorges, of West Bloomfield, said he asked the teens to leave after he emptied out his register for them.

"They kept saying, 'No. Give us the safe and the videotape (or) we're going to kill both of you,'" said the customer, whose name was being withheld.

Gorges, who purchased a gun eight years ago after his store was robbed, said he fired his weapon when Linnear pointed the handgun at him.

"I didn't want to do that … I gave him a chance, but that's his choice," Gorges said.

The 17-year-old suffered a gunshot wound to the head. He was taken to Providence Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.

Jackson and Benson, both from Detroit, were arrested by Southfield police. One was chased and captured by a police officer and the other was tracked down by a K-9 unit, police said.

The teens were charged as adults Thursday afternoon.

Police said they do not expect the storeowner to face charges.

And if they did, I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised, but I’m really happy the Good Guy is safe and the Bad Guys are not free to feed. Now, to wait a few hours and check the news again for the whining from the parents of the Punk with the .45. "He was a peace-loving honor student devoted to his family."

Pfffttt.

Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws

I am always impressed by the sheer volume of discussion available on the internet on almost any subject. Politics, most specifically Second Amendment political discussion is particularly close to my heart and gets the majority of my attention.

When I discovered Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, I was pretty darned happy. As a scientist and professional myself, I became involved with the public push for firearms rights simply because I felt I was part of a demographic that was not being seen by the public. I wanted to let people see a middle aged professional woman was also a gun owner and believer in the right to keep and bear arms, as our Founding Fathers intended the good citizens of our country to be.

I ran across an article on the DSL site and got quite a kick out of it.

In 1662 the Armarium Urguentum advised physicians on the treatment of gunshot and other wounds:

If the wound is large, the weapon with which the patient has been wounded should be anointed daily; otherwise, every two or three days. The weapon should be kept in pure linen and a warm place but not too hot, nor squalid, lest the patient suffer harm.[1]

Well, damn. I had to read it twice to be sure it said what I thought it said. This is where it all began, I guess. More than three hundred forty years ago, some idiot thought that treating the weapon was going to make a difference in the resultant recovery of an individual set upon and injured by someone using a weapon.

And it continues today. Fools and charlatans continue to blather on about “gun violence”, as if a gun has any inherent violent characteristic and was somehow able to behave in any many other than doing whatever its owner directs it to in his or her manner of use.

Read the article – these bright, dedicated, educated and articulate people have said it better than I ever could have.

With footnotes.

Oh, I am Not....

You Are 30 Years Old

Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

What Age Do You Act?

Congress Shall Make No Law...

Doc recently brought a pair of articles to my attention, one with the comment, "We provide terrorists with copies of the Quran and prayer rugs and point them to the East, while we deny imprisoned U.S. citizens the right to worship? "

The first article, in The Wall Street Journal, authored by Vincent Philip Munoz, reminds us that “once an idiot, always an idiot” is true more often than we’d like. Michael Newdow, the atheist lawyer who last year attempted to persuade the Supreme Court to strip the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, has filed a lawsuit seeking to remove all prayer and "Christian religious acts" from the January 20th inauguration of President Bush.

Next up to bat is the idiot running a prison in Pennsylvania who kicked out the priest who had been ministering to death-row inmates, or rather those death-row inmates who wished to assert their First Amendment Right to worship.

But there’s more. It seems all over the United States, there are prisons that step on the religiosity of inmates. And no, I do not believe that prisons or taxpayers should have to pay the cost of some of the foolishness that will parade under the name of religious freedom, but to deny prisoners the wearing of religious articles, or studying the Bible or the Torah – that amazes me, frankly.

I’m not sure who should win the Idiot of the Year award but this would be a hot competition.

Mr. Newdow’s issue is one we’re probably all at least vaguely familiar with. He’s the man who didn’t want his daughter to hear the words “under God”, and sued for the right to stop anyone and everyone from using the words “under God.” The sheer wrong-headedness of that is impressive.

The trials and tribulations in PA may be a different story. The second article, by Chuck Colson, and residing at townhall.com, gives an overview of the Supreme Court case, soon to be heard, on the Pennsylvania law that protects an inmate’s right to practice religion, and makes a good case for this law being Constitutional, despite its origin being to protect religious practice.

The Constitution, in the First Amendment of that pesky Bill of Rights, discusses the State’s inability to either support or forbid, a particular religion. “Congress shall make no law… ” It seems this phrase is the only one people hear or choose to review. Taken out of context, I will admit that this appears to disallow Congress from making any law of any kind supporting a religion.

Forgive my Clinton-esque digression, but I believe the arguments that are necessary to discuss hinge more on what was meant by “respecting establishing a religion.” And “prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

“Congress shall make no law… ” is clear – just as clear as “Shall not be infringed…” but that’s an argument for another day.

But the other two phrases; “respecting establishing a religion.” and “prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” – well, as any good pirate would say, “Aye, matey, now there’s the rub.”

Neither for, nor against, and that's exactly why there are two clauses. Let’s try paraphrasing the quote for understanding.

“Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of] for, or [prohibiting the free exercise thereof] against any particular religion.” No law can be passed, and remain Constitutional, that either supports or forbids, any religious practice on the part of the individual. That’s the way those ten amendments to the Constitution - the Bill of Rights - were conceived, authored and signed into law - as a protection of basic human rights. One turns one’s eye to how this must be interpreted in terms of “this right belongs to each and every one of us.” It is, just as is the Second Amendment, an individual protection against the State.

President Bush is more than entitled to pray if he chooses to make that part of his speech, and he is as entitled to the same Amendment's support of free speech should he ask the audience, or his fellow Americans, or the world, to join him in doing so.

The death penalty is not an issue of religiosity, nor has society suddenly decreed it so. The death penalty is a strictly secular act that allows for the non-reversible removal of someone from society who cannot, and will not, ever be allowed to join society again. For whatever extreme act a Death Row prisoner has been convicted of committing, he or she has forfeited the right to live.

“Thy rod and thy staff comfort me,” exists in all religions I am familiar with, in some form or another. No idiot in the prison system has the right to keep a man or woman, scheduled to die, for any reason, from making his or her peace with God. The Pennsylvania law that is now under fire because it seeks to protect, not the rights of one chosen religion, or even two or three, but all prisoners’ right to worship as they see fit, is nothing more than an “enforcement” backup for the First Amendment on the state level.

The law should stand, and judges who seek to enjoy activism from the bench should wake up and re-think the idea of Constitutional. It is not based on, “does this make someone feel bad,” or “would this offend someone,” it’s based on Law.

The Court must support the right to pray. If it does not, once again, an integral part of the Bill of Rights and our Constitution falters. Badly.

Everybody just calm down and quit overreacting...

In a recent discussion on my web site's forum, I posted Nancy Mathis' page entitled "History Test" and, in no time at all, got back a rather hysterical reaction from an attorney who is a member there. The vast majority of people who are members on the site are Conservative, but somehow, despite his Pro-2A stance and activism in firearms rights, the reaction level to a lot of issues such as this one is way over the top.

His response:

Oh yes . . . we must profile all Muslim men.

And keep that Cat Stevens dude on the terrorist watch list. His songs really suck anyway.

And while we're at it . . . since members of the IRA are all Irish, and mostly Catholic, let's make sure to profile and strip search all Irish, and all Catholics. And throw a buncha folks with names starting in O' and Mc onto our no-fly and terroist profile lists.

Is it wrong to equate Islam with "Muslim" terrorism. If anything, the terrorists are more associated with Palestinian statehood, than with any faith. Muslims of faith and conscience are not the ones we need to worry about; and it is insulting and degrading to them to associate them with terrorists.

One other thing: Question #7 -- IIRC, one of the hijackers was a Chaldean who supported Palestinian freedom from Israel. Not a Muslim. So are we going to include all Christians? Or just Chaldeans?

Now, frankly, as the wife of a Chinese gentleman, the mother of two Caucasian children and one who is biracial (but predominately identified as Black), the grandmother to two young women whose father is Mexican, two more whose mother is Canadian, and the future mother-in-law to a Polish immigrant, I'm a little tired of the implication that I am somehow racist because I share a web page that someone totally overreacts to.

I realise that this is somehow a hot button for you, my friend, but it doesn't change facts. Neither does it help for you to take it all the way over the top, as in "Oh yes . . . we must profile all Muslim men."

The New York Times Magazine, June 18,1999: "profiling means an officer using cumulative knowledge to identify certain indicators criminal activity. Race may be one of those factors but it cannot stand alone. Racial profiling is when race is the only factor. There is no other probable cause."

I am tired of having anyone try to make me feel as though I, or anyone else, is doing anything wrong by attempting to identify criminals by "checking out" individuals that match the characteristics of individuals who are known to have committed crimes. There are quite literally tens of thousands of Middle Eastern men (and women) who want us dead. How on earth can anyone logically expect us, and our law enforcement community, to ignore that?

Profiling is a logical tool for that community and I would find serious fault with any LEO, dept. etc. ignoring that.

For instance, if a black male between 20 and 30 wearing dark clothing shoots a little old lady on the east side of Detroit and for the next 24 hours, police keep an eye out for black males between 20 and 30 wearing dark clothing and take a good, close look at them, and indeed, if any suspicious behavior is visible, the police stop, question, etc. individuals described thusly, too bad if the individuals are offended and want to make it a racial issue.

The posting from the fellow who was so offended by my relatively innocent sharing of another friend's web site referenced Yusuf Islam as Cat Stevens, which is probably quite offensive to him (if he took notice of it, of course) since I am quite sure he would view it as an ethnocentric refusal to recognize his status as both a Muslim and an individual who has opted to change his name and live under a whole new set of beliefs.

If our government has reason to believe that Mr. Islam, or any other non-citizen, is negaged in high risk behaviors that might be dangerous to our citizens, then refusing that individual entry into our country has my complete support.

A spokesman for the US Department of Homeland Security, Garrison Courtney, told the AFP news agency that Mr Islam's name "was placed on watch lists because of concerns that the US has about activities that can potentially be related to terrorism".

"More recently, our intelligence community has come into the possession of additional information that further heightens our concerns towards Yusuf Islam," he added.

I refuse to be categorized as racist because I post something from Nancy Mathis (americandaughter.com author) and then watch you go all the way over the edge in this.

Do I think all Muslims males are people such as those that have committed the many atrocities against US citizens?

No.

Do I believe that we can afford to ignore that there is a very large group of Muslim males out there that want our Country destroyed?

No. And I think we'd be fools to do so.

From a Marine....

First posted 9-11-04:

The proud warriors of Baker Company wanted to do something to pay tribute to our fallen comrades. So since we are part of the only Marine Infantry Battalion left in Iraq the one way that we could think of doing that is by taking a picture of Baker Company saying the way we feel. It would be awesome if you could find a way to share this with our fellow countrymen.

I was wondering if there was any way to get this into your papers to let the world know that "WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN" and are proud to serve our country." Semper Fi
1stSgt Dave Jobe

This post and photograph is being spread across blogs voluntarily. There is no need to request permission to do so. Simply download the photograph, upload it to wherever you can and share the 1stSgt.'s sentiment with the world.

The world still needs reminding. And our Troops need remembering. Thank them for our freedoms every chance you get.

Photographs

Some people/things I enjoy and some of my own photographs:

http://www.cpltrainer.com/gallery.html

This was my wedding cake - I just celebrated my second anniversary.



The layout on the gallery page is a bit rough for now but I'll get around to fixing it, I suspect.

Some Favorite Quotes....

I can't attribute a few of these but I admire the thinking, nonetheless...

"An open mind is one thing; letting geese run around in there is quite another."

NRA - What you want would all be impossible if it were not for us crazies. "...shall not be infringed," meant just that. If we protected the 2nd amendment as asiduously as we protect the first amendment, I'd have a howitzer at home instead of a small number of small arms. -- Doc

When you consider something like death, after which (there being no newsflash to the contrary) we may well go out like a candle flame, then it probably doesn't matter if we try too hard, are awkward sometimes, care for one another too deeply, are excessively curious about nature, are too opento experience, enjoy a nonstop expense of the senses in an effort to know life intimately and lovingly. -- Diane Ackerman

Every man should use his intellect, not as he uses his lamp in the study, only for his own seeing, but as the lighthouse uses its lamps, that those afar off on the seas may see the shining, and learn their way.-- H. W. Beecher

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of thepeople alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its onlysafe depositories." --Thomas Jefferson

"Here's a sillygism for them: They think gun owners are dangerous. But they also think it is safe for them to try taking away guns from millions of gun owners." -- J. Neil Schulman

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." *Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 "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." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" - Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." - Thomas Jefferson

George Mason, of Virginia:

"[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.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -- Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 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 Defence of a free state." Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:

"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." -- Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

William Grayson, of Virginia:

"[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty." -- Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:

"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... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

James Madison, of Virginia:

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Alexander Hamilton, of New York:

"[I]f 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 rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29

Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:

"[A]rms 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." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

" . . . 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
Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts:

"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." -- Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789 Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Patrick Henry, of Virginia:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington

Samuel Adams:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Happy New Year

Hope it's the best and brightest and our freedoms continue to grow.