Posts Tagged ‘Nazi germany’

Julian Assange is something of an enigma. To be honest, I don’t know a lot about him. I still don’t pay much attention to the mainstream news, and I don’t like conspiracy theories. So I mildly pay attention and try to figure out the real story from a distance. Today Julian spoke out from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. I found much of what he said to be intriguing and inspiring.

LONDON (Reuters) – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange used the balcony of the Ecuadorean embassy on Sunday to berate the United States for threatening freedom of expression and called on President Barack Obama to end what he called a witch-hunt against his whistle-blowing website.

Speaking from within the London mission to avoid arrest by British police who want to extradite him to Sweden for questioning over rape allegations, Assange said the United States was fighting a war against outlets like WikiLeaks.

Pitching himself alongside Russian punk band Pussy Riot and the New York Times newspaper, Assange said the United States risked shunting the world into an era of journalistic oppression. He did not address the rape allegations.

“As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression and the health of all of our societies,” Assange said, dressed in a maroon tie and blue shirt, flanked by the yellow, blue and red Ecuadorean flag.

“I ask President Obama to do the right thing: the United States much renounce its witch-hunt against WikiLeaks,” Assange said in a 10-minute speech which he ended with two thumbs up to the world’s media.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, a self-declared enemy of “corrupt” media and U.S. “imperialism”, granted the former computer hacker political asylum last week, deepening a diplomatic standoff with Britain and Sweden.

Asylum in Ecuador marked the latest twist in a tumultuous journey for Assange since he incensed the United States and its allies by using his WikiLeaks website to leak hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic and military cables in 2010, disclosures that often embarrassed Washington.

Assange, 41, took sanctuary in the embassy in June, jumping bail after exhausting appeals in British courts against extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted in Sweden for questioning regarding allegations of rape and sexual assault against two women.

He says he fears Sweden will eventually hand him over to the United States where, in his view, he would face persecution and long-term imprisonment. The United States says it is not involved in the matter.

‘FIGHTING SPIRIT’

To allow Assange to avoid arrest by stepping outside the embassy, a balcony door on an upper floor was removed, leading up to his first public appearance since seeking refuge in the diplomatic mission two months ago.

Speaking behind the condor of the Ecuadorean coat of arms on the white balcony railing of the embassy, Assange thanked Correa and Ecuador’s diplomats, whom he praised for standing up against oppression.

“The sun came up on a different world and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice,” Assange, with cropped hair indicating a recent cut, said from the balcony.

Assange’s attempt to escape extradition has touched off a diplomatic tussle between Britain and Ecuador, which accused London of threatening to raid its embassy and casting the dispute as an arrogant European power treating a Latin American nation like a colony.

Assange, who praised a dozen Latin American countries which he said had rallied against Britain in the dispute, said the United States was at a turning point which could drag the rest of the world into a new oppressive era.

He said U.S. army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, accused of the largest leak of classified documents in U.S. history to WikiLeaks, was a hero who should be released by the United States.

Manning faces life in prison if convicted.

“If Bradley Manning did as he is accused, he is a hero and an example to all of us and one of the world’s foremost political prisoners,” said Assange. “Bradley Manning must be released.”

‘FIGHTING SPIRIT’

More than 50 of Assange supporters, many of whom have slept on sheets of cardboard outside the building since Wednesday, decorated barriers with messages of support for Assange and placards reading “asylum – end the witch hunt”.

“They are not treating him fairly,” said Chantal, 28, a French pro-WikiLeaks blogger who had traveled overnight with a friend from near Paris in the hope of seeing Assange speak.

“Great Britain has shown it doesn’t respect human rights – political asylum is a right which should be respected by all countries,” she said. She refused to give her surname.

There was also a large crowd of curious passersby and bemused shoppers with bags from the nearby ritzy Harrods store watching the proceedings from across the street.

“Julian Assange is in fighting spirit,” Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish jurist and prominent human rights investigator who heads Assange’s legal team, told reporters outside the embassy.

“He is thankful to the people of Ecuador and to President Correa for granting him asylum,” said Garzon.

Britain says the dispute is about its legal obligations and that Assange should be extradited to Sweden. But Assange says he fears he will eventually be sent to the United States although Washington has so far kept its distance from the dispute.

(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Additional reporting by Alessandra Prentice in London and Morag MacKinnon in Sydney; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Giles Elgood)

The case of Bradly Manning is a difficult one. During a time when the country is under the influence of criminals throughout the political spectrum. At what point do we call him a traitor for exposing his country’s secrets? Or a patriot for doing the very same thing?

I think the most important thing Julian said during this article is “As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression and the health of all of our societies” and that ‘the United States was at a turning point which could drag the rest of the world into a new oppressive era.’

I find it terrifying that the country which fought off fascism, is now poised to take over Nazi Germany as the most oppressive country in human history. We now start wars based on ‘potential threats’. These wars are started off false information and pandering by the media. The true reasons are kept secret, and there are war profiteers who make substantial gains behind the scenes, while many innocent people die in the bloodshed. We now have the largest prison population in human history, and there are ever growing accounts of police brutality, while our freedoms are surrendered at the stroke of a pen.

I know that exposing military secrets is tantamount to treason, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend acting in this way. I know that wiki-leaks isn’t necessarily a good website because of these reasons. But the pursuance of Assange and the treatment of Manning is very telling in how close they got to the mark; on how our countries are currently functioning behind the scenes. There is much criminality to be spread around, and our governments are not acting within the scope that they were intended to.

I do not believe Assange is guilty of the sexual assault allegations, I believe these are trumped up charges to get him locked up or shut up. What he and Manning did is expose the beast for what it is. Whether what they did is right or not, that is for you to decide. Because the actions that our governments take will affect you.

Where we draw the line in cases like this is the difficult part, because it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

How far would you be willing to go to expose the truth or protect people who speak out? There is a difference between blind nationalism and true patriotism.

Think about it.

“Laws control the lesser man… Right conduct controls the greater one.” – Mark Twain

When asked the question ‘how on earth could you do that?’ is asked. Their answers are all the same; ‘I was just doing my job’ or ‘I’ve got bills to pay’. They were just doing their ‘duty’. The problem with collectivism, is that it is so rampant, and so widespread, that it affects everyone’s lives. It is easy to hide behind, and is the cause of millions of deaths and suffering in the world.

Portrait of a Drone Killer: ‘I Have a Duty, and I Execute My Duty’

One wonders if drone pilot Col. D. Scott Brenton listens to Louis Armstrong in the suburban Air National Guard Base in Syracuse from which he murders people 7,000 miles away.

“I see mothers with children, I see fathers with children, I see fathers with mothers, I see kids playing soccer,” Brenton tells the New York Times. Drone operators see their intended targets “wake up in the morning, do their work, go to sleep at night,” explains Dave, another high-tech murderer who killed from an office cockpit at Nevada’s Creech Air Force Base and who now trains new recruits to the cyber-killer corps at New Mexico’s Holloman Air Force Base.

When instructed to kill someone he has stalked from the air for a prolonged period, “I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy,” Brenton insists. I have a duty, and I execute my duty.” When the deed is done, he points out, nobody “in my immediate environment is aware of anything that has occurred.”

“There was a good reason for killing the people that I did, and I go through it in my head over and over and over,” insists another drone operator named Will, who — like Dave — served a deskbound “combat” tour at Creech and now trains others to do likewise at Holloman Air Base.

 

Like the soldier Bates in Henry V, it’s sufficient for Will — and others of his ilk — to render obedience to their Leader, confident that “if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.” The more concise and notorious formula, of course, is: We are only obeying orders. Besides, drone operators (who insist on being called “combat pilots”) are carrying out an indispensable function by picking off Afghan “militants” — or at least those “suspected” of such tendencies — who unreasonably resent the presence of foreign military personnel in their country.

The New York Times profile is part of a campaign by the state-aligned media to “humanize” the state functionaries who murder by remote control — and to normalize this mode of mass murder as drones become part of the domestic apparatus of surveillance, regimentation, and repression. Readers are invited to share the anguish of these conflicted people, who for reasons of duty have to do terrible but necessary things.

In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt offered a glimpse into the mindset of SS personnel who were given a somewhat similar assignment. To carry out their killing errand, she explained, something had to be done “to overcome not so much their conscience as the animal pity by which all normal men are affected in the presence of physical suffering.”

“The trick used by Himmler … was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self,” Arendt recounted. “So that instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people!, the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!”

Not everybody attached to the Regime’s Cyber-Killing Corps is haunted by the horrors he has inflicted on defenseless people halfway around the world. In a 2009 U.S. Naval Academy lecture, Dr. P.W. Singer of the Brookings Institution made reference to what he called “predator porn” — footage of drone attacks proudly circulated by the people who committed those acts. In a typical offering, Dr. Singer relates, “A Hellfire missile drops, goes in, and hits the target, followed by an explosion and bodies tossed into the air.” Singer described one clip of that kind, sent to him by a joystick-wielding assassin, that “was set to music, the pop song ‘I Just Want to Fly’ by the band Sugar Ray.”

“It’s like a videogame,” one deskbound drone jockey told Singer. “It can get a little bloodthirsty. But it’s f****g cool.”

Singer describes asking a drone pilot “what it was like to fight insurgents in Iraq while based in Nevada. He said, ‘You are going to war for 12 hours, shooting weapons at targets, directing kills on enemy combatants, and then you get in the car and you drive home. And within 20 minutes, you’re sitting at the dinner table talking to your kids about their homework.” Meanwhile, somewhere in Iraq (or Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, or another country yet to be identified), other families are desperately looking through the rubble of their own homes in search of survivors.

Although drone strikes occur daily, most Americans pay little heed to them — beyond occasionally taking inconsolable offense when a dissident publicly describes them as acts of murder, and insults the Dear Leader by daring to compare him to less prolific killers.

This may change soon: As the Times points out, the Pentagon — driven by “a near insatiable demand for drones” — is training hundreds of operators to join the corps of more than 1,300 currently stationed at more than a dozen bases across the country. Surveillance drones operated by domestic police agencies are already plying the skies above us. Those robot aircraft can be upgraded to airborne weapons platforms, and they soon will. The people being trained to feel “no emotional attachment” to foreigners designated enemies of the state will feel no particular burden when ordered to kill fellow Americans on that list. I’m sure that the “combat pilots” who murdered U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman would testify to that fact — that is, if the “heroes” who committed those acts were man enough to acknowledge their deeds in public.

Evil men and their puppets are able to hide behind technology now, but it is harder for the police ‘on the street’. The evidence of militarized build up of police forces is now rampant. The problems arise when innocent people get shot by cops who cross the line, like the events in Anaheim a few days ago.

The people who protest against police brutality and the militarization of police forces are heroes. Now how exactly is this young man threatening anyone?

‘Tempers continued to flare in Anaheim on Sunday afternoon as a group of about 250 protesters stood directly in front of the Police Department, the latest demonstration the city has seen after two fatal police shootings last weekend. Heavily armed and militarized forces were patrolling the streets and nine people were arrested including this man.’

Why is it, in a civilized nation, that we need the police force to become militarized? Is it because we are heading straight toward total anarchy? Or a total police state? I would say we already have a police state. There are security cameras being put up at new intersections all over the country. The police have become militarized, and the TSA has become an ever increasing parasite, including not only airports now, but bus services, and road checkpoints. This country truly is becoming the spitting image of Nazi Germany of the 1930′s.

When you hear news pundits talk about the ‘greatness of America’ and of patriotism and ‘serving your nation’. They are talking of serving the state, for the sake of the state, and not for the responsibility of liberty. Freedom comes at a cost, but not in wars over seas. We have lost more freedoms since our armed forces have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, than any other point in our nation’s history.

Take a look around you, what do you see? Is this still the home of the brave and the land of the free? Or do you notice the 450 million rounds of ammunition going to homeland security, an agency that didn’t exist a few years ago. And do you see all the horrible constitution denying documents that are being passed by congress?

Nazi Germany came about slowly over the course of a decade, in a similar way to this country over this previous decade.

What is your definition of patriotism? Do you support and defend the Constitution and your own individual liberties, or do you support the nation state and the collective?

At what point should the police and military stop taking horrific orders? Will they stop at the sight of Americans themselves being killed? Or is their training so ingrained that they will go along with whatever their masters tell them to?

And what will you do? How far will you go? Will you stand up and stop this from happening? Or will you go along with the nation, for the greatness of the nation state?

As Yoda said in star wars; “you must unlearn, what you have learned”

liberatedindividual:

This is a very interesting perspective, and covers many areas. Make sure you read the whole thing and look up the resources. This article touches on many of the things I have found out myself over the last few months.

Originally posted on Video Rebel's Blog:

‘Syria is do or die for Israel.’

There are lies, great lies and then there is 911.’

Sheikh Imran Hosein

Dr Alan Sabrosky is a ten year veteran of the United States Marine Corps and has a PhD from the University of Michigan. He was a Director of Studies at the US Army War College. He is partially of Jewish descent. He has been telling his former colleagues in the Marine Corps and at the Army War College that Israel did 911.  He accuses American Jews of a lack of loyalty to their native land and giving their allegiance to Israel.  He said that being loyal to America is a non-negotiable part of citizenship. By attacking America on 911, the Israelis and the traitors in America who defend them set in motion a series of events that led to 60,000 American casualties and more if you count the suicides. Americans…

View original 1,701 more words

Each day, I research different stories from a variety of sources. As I’ve stated before, I do not pay much attention to the mainstream media, as it is all agenda driven garbage. One of the independent sources that I follow is WhatReallyHappened.com . Mike Rivero does an excellent job of finding stories from many different news organizations and blogs, and displays links to them daily on his website.

Today he wrote about an uncomfortable truth about Nazi Germany, Israel, the USA and Iran, and what they all have, or do not have in common:

Here is the uncomfortable truth.

  NAZI ISRAEL USA IRAN
Invades other
countries
YES YES YES NO
Lied to justify invasion YES YES YES NO
Concentration camps YES YES YES NO
Targets a religious minority YES YES YES NO
Violates Treaties YES YES YES NO
World leader in weapons technology YES YES YES NO

The Nazis attacked and invaded other nations. So does the United States. So does Israel.Iran has not initiated a war in over 200 years.

The Nazis lied to start wars (Gliewitz). So does theUnited States (Saddam’s nukes). So does Israel (Iran’s nukes). Not having invaded anyone, Iran did not need to lie about it.

The NAZIS had slave-labor camps. The United States has a huge and growing prison-labor industry. Israel has Ansar III. Iran has no equivalent.

The NAZIs targeted a religious minority, Jews. The United States currently targets Muslims. Israel is an apartheid state. All religions live under equal protection in Iran to the point where Jews living in Iran refused a financial offer by the Israelis to relocate to Israel.

The NAZIs broke many treaties including the treaty of Versailles and the Munich agreement. The United States has violated numerous treaties including the START treaty and the NNPT. Israel violated the 1979 treaty with Egypt, and avoided violating the NNPT by refusing to sign it, even though Israel is building nuclear weapons and was exposed for trying to sell one to South Africa.

The NAZIs were renowned for their cutting edge weapons technology including the V-1 and V-2. The US makes no bones about making the most lethal (and costly) weapons on Earth. Israel has a major defense industry that develops new weapons such as Iron Dome with US subsidies, then markets them around the world.

And there is your uncomfortable truth.

Yesterday I updated my website and put my URL to good use. You can now go directly to my main site at www.abundanttruth.com which has links to different news sources, and also this blog.

Finding honest and independent news articles and blogs is a treasure in a time of deceit. I hope you find my articles interesting and thought provoking. I try to vary the subjects, and keep things fresh. My main theme throughout all my articles is to find the truth, and to encourage independent thought and support liberty throughout. Remember that independence and freedom starts from within, so always keep an open mind, and go out there and find the truth.

US politicians and people like Glenn Beck profess their love for Israel whenever the subject of the Middle East comes up. But they never talk about how Israel came about, or its bloody uprising.

This documentary shows an unbiased view of the birth of Israel:

So what do the Nazis and Israelis have in common?

Both Nazi Germany and Israel have occupied lands that did not belong to them. Both came about by war and bloody struggle, and both massacred innocent civilians. Why is it that because of what happened during the holocaust in Nazi Germany in Europe, that we can somehow justify the expulsion of Palestinians from their native lands in the Middle East?

What happened during the holocaust was terrible and unimaginable. But what many in the world do not realize, or rather ignore; is that many ethnic cleansing and brutal murders on a massive scale, have happened since. Just look at Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia. Just in the last couple of decades many hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered. Why do we feel the need to justify Israel’s occupation of Palestine because of what the Nazi’s in Europe did to the Jews during the early 1940′s? Does it not seem ironic to you that we support a regime that now shows similarities to the very evil they themselves fled from?

Why do we support an occupying regime in the Middle East, just because it professes to be a democracy? Why do we denigrate Iran for being ‘extreme’ when we are the ones who overthrew its leader when they attempted to form their own democracy?

Why do individuals allow themselves to get so wrapped up in a one sided view point? Arabs and Muslims are not evil; they do not want to kill us all, just as Christians and Jews are not all evil also. There is a very small percentage of each group that wants holy war, and it has been going on for hundreds of years.

Do not get sucked into such a way of thinking. It is a trap, and you will become a useful idiot.

My articles are highly controversial, and I rock the boat severely when it comes to politics. I don’t really fall into one category. My mode of thinking perplexes both those on the right and those on the left. But if we are to move forward in the world, if we are to restore this country, and become a beacon of hope for the world once more. We need to be able to sit down and intelligently think about how we conduct ourselves in the world. Remember that your comfort zone is your failure zone. Don’t get comfortable being a ‘conservative’ and don’t get comfortable being a ‘liberal’. Both sides will play you off against one another. They are both two faces on the same head. Don’t allow political pundits to manipulate your mind so that you become sedate in your actions.

I believe in liberty for all mankind, or at least an adherence toward it. Developed nations should strive to become an example for the world. Not try to force other nations to ‘comply’ with their demands. That is why I do not agree with the sanctions on Iran, and that is why I do not support Israel. If we truly wanted peace in the Middle East, we would withdraw our troops and go home. But we are not interested in that. We are simply and desperately interested in oil.

My home country banned hand guns outright in 1997. Since then handgun crime and violent crime has skyrocketed.

This is reproduced from an article in the Times Online (UK) Sept 8th 2007. The article could be found at; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece . The content needs no comment, as it is entirely self explanatory:

Authored by Richard Munday – editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen

Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “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.”

One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).

America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

It is very hard to buy any kind of weaponry in England; the same country which set forth the Magna Carta and protected the right to keep and bear arms many hundreds of years ago.

I once went to buy some nunchakus to play with, and I had to sign a form to let the government know that I had purchased them.

In order to buy a shotgun in England, you must take a class and obtain a ‘shotgun license’. You must also purchase an appropriate locking device to keep your gun securely locked inside your home. The local police must stop by and inspect it before you can be granted your license.

This is how far England has fallen from its original freedoms, and that is what I fear for America if we continue to ride along on the collectivist death train.

In this country I have a right to keep and bear arms, and I exercise that right. Since moving here I have acquired several firearms, and I proudly show them off to friends and family when they come to visit. I keep them clean, and take them to the firing range often.

The first gun I ever fired was a 44 magnum. I have my father-in-law to thank for that. My wife and I’s wedding was a whirlwind affair, and I did not know many people in this country. In fact; I knew no-one outside of her family. So the day before our wedding, my father-in-law took me and my dad (my family had flown in for the wedding) to the local firing range. This was his idea of a bachelor party, and considering that at this point I had never fired a handgun before, I was ecstatic. I knew from the Dirty Harry movies that the 44 Magnum had one heck of a kick to it, and that it was still one of the most powerful handguns in the world. So when we entered the range and I held the huge hunk of steel in my hands, I gripped it with all my might, so as not to get smacked in the face when the bullet discharged. I aimed it, with a tight but slightly relaxed grip; anticipating the recoil, I squeezed the trigger; BANG! The gun kicked up with a flash of flame exploding out from the barrel of the gun. I was stunned. I knew that it would have a kick, but it was like firing a shotgun or a large firework right in front of your face with your bare hands. I looked around at my father-in-law with my jaw wide open, and then at my dad with a grin starting to rip at the sides of my mouth. It was exhilarating, and I lined up for my next shot; BANG! Again the gun went off with a mammoth explosion. What a rush! After I had gone through a dozen rounds I handed the gun over to my father-in-law, who put another dozen through it, and then he gave it to my dad, who put another set through it. After that I was hooked for life.

After the better part of a year and much paperwork, I received my green-card; with this I received many of the privileges that Americans enjoy. I was also now able to purchase firearms; so long as I could prove at least six months of residency. The week after I got my green-card, I went to the same firing range to buy my first pistol. After I filled out the paperwork and gave them proof of my residency, I was told I needed to wait a couple of days so that they could run the additional checks. I returned a few days later, and everything was in order. I gave cash for my gun, and the man behind the counter slid my new firearm with its additional clip and re-loader over to me in a nice black hardened plastic box and said ‘Mr Townsend, I hope this firearm serves you well’. With a smile I said ‘thank you’, clipped the box shut and walked out of the range with a grin. I had just exercised my second amendment rights, and I felt exhilarated to do so, especially knowing that none of my friends and family back home even had the right to do so.

I now keep that firearm with me wherever I go, it has indeed served me well. I hope I never have to use it in self defense, but it is there if I should ever need it, and my sovereign rights as an individual shall never be infringed.

Firearms are an important part of freedom. Aside from being a useful deterrent against would-be aggressors, they are also a fun sport to take part in.

Depending on what statistics you read:

Half of all US citizens exercise their rights to own firearms and protect themselves. Indeed, the more people that own guns, the lower the crime rate:

Gun sales up, crime down

As Judge Alex Kozinski accurately stated; ‘the second amendment is a doomsday provision’. It protects individuals from all enemies foreign and domestic. It lets the government know that you the individuals are in charge, and stops the rise of powers such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, which striped their citizens of the right to bear arms before stripping them of their rights and lives altogether.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341- 42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble. All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust,to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here.

See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99.

If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. 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 reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the light of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: 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.

The whole time we have guns, we cannot be taken over by government, and no invading country can ever dominate us. Just take a look at Switzerland, for hundreds of years they have never been invaded because every man is required to own a gun. They also have the lowest crime rate in the entire world.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by The Bill of Rights, second amendment:

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

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.” -Thomas Jefferson

So long as our gun owning rights are not infringed, we will continue to live in a free country, because a gun owning country cannot be ruled over without revolt. It is our god given right to keep and bear arms, and we are the masters of our own domains so long as we do so.

History has shown that a free and law abiding society that owns guns will always be safer than a society striped of its rights to do so. Let us never fall into the same trap that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia fell into. Let us always defend our right to bear arms, and defend our own peace and prosperity. Let us not give criminals the upper hand with gun control laws. Let us carry our guns so that we might protect ourselves if our own sovereignty is challenged.

Throughout history, especially in the 20th century, those law abiding citizens that have kept guns have been proven to save lives.

I don’t do drugs. I never have, and I never will. But I don’t care if you do, just so long as you don’t do it around me.

Saying all that, why don’t we end the war on drugs and legalize pot? With as much as 50% of the entire country having done or doing drugs, I’d say we’ve lost the war on drugs. What an expensive waste of time. You can get drugs on almost any street corner, and it costs you far more than if you were to grow it yourself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9031855/Its-time-to-end-the-failed-war-on-drugs.html

Marijuana has healing benefits, and hemp creates a strong fiber that can be used to make clothes.

So why don’t we legalize pot, put a tax on it, the same as for alcohol and tobacco, and let people smoke it.

But everyone will be on drugs! Oh the humanity!

Well that is an interesting scare tactic, because many European countries allow open possession and use of marijuana, and they have the lowest usage of the drug in the world. This is because it is not taboo, and they see no need to feel rebellious and smoke it. Just look at how the stricter alcohol laws have made teens more susceptible to over-drinking in this country.

But its immoral!!!! I hear you scream.

Look, you cannot legalize morality. This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not the home of the morality by law social police state.

Morality starts in the individual, then in relationships, in the family, in your home, in your neighborhood. Once people start to remember morality again, they will teach their children and talk to their neighbors about the side effects of drugs, and how it is irresponsible to get high all the time.

So why not strike down the federal law, make it a state issue, slowly introduce it, manufacture and tax it, and stop the wasteful war on drugs. It will end many of the crimes being committed in the US, and stop the violence along the Mexico border.

And for all those who say production will slow down, take a minute to remember that we’re in a recession. I think the real reason a lot of people are afraid of making it legal is because they are afraid people will not show up to work, and will cause traffic accidents. And to this I say that an employer can refuse to let the employee in if he/she is ‘high’. And if the said person who causes a wreck is ‘high’, they should be prosecuted the same way as a drunk would be if they caused a wreck.

Wouldn’t it be better to allow those who want to do it, a cheaper way to do it, so they can spend more of their money on legitimate products such as video games and televisions, rather than waste a huge sums of money to some shady drug dealer? Wouldn’t this actually boost the economy? Especially considering that so many people do marijuana right now anyway.

Think about it; making it a state issue puts it in the hands of the people of each individual state, so some can outright ban it, and some can introduce it as legal. By making it legal we eliminate the violence on the Mexican border, free up more individuals money to spend on legitimate products and help boost economy, and we get people to wake up and realize that they need to take their lives into their own hands and take care of themselves, not expect to be taken care of by the nanny state.

Also you must look at how marijuana is being used to introduce more and more  anti-consitutional laws. Such as the Indiana police now being able to break into someones home because they ‘smell marijuana’. Just think of the corruption this  causes.

Laws that are created to help people save them from themselves often backfire, and are then used to create more authoritarian rules that put the lives of others in jepordy. This war on drugs has helped to create the police state, and has helped militarize the police, in a similar way to Nazi Germany in the 1930′s.

I do not endorse the use of drugs, in fact I have a strong distaste for anyone who uses them. I don’t mind if you use them because I am a libertarian at heart and beleive that you have the right to your own body. But that does not mean that I will approve on a moral level of what you do. I will still tell you that drugs are bad mmkay?

I’d like to hear your opinions. Please try to be open minded, I see that one of the biggest problems in this country is that everyone is afraid to manufacture anything. The attitude is that pot is bad so it should be banned. So much is regulated, and no one is allowed to produce anything without vast sums of regulations and paperwork getting in the way.

Keep an open mind, and think about the future. It is up to the individual to rule his own life, not the police state, no matter how bad that person chooses to live their life.

I am all for allowing the individual to succeed or fail, and I do not want a police state dictating to me or anyone else their right to do so.