Make no mistake, bad times are coming. DHS is afraid of lunatic fringe groups capitalizing on the fear and confusion in the coming days, and obviously intends to reply swiftly and firmly to any organized threat. They are not alone, as the US military also is gearing up for war at home.

`
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Northern_Command
`
This is what happens when you give up liberty because someone offers you safety. No more Bill of Rights after 9-11 is yielding an unsafe unfree country (with food and water shortages and killer storms year round).

The number of hate groups monitored by SPLC has gone from a couple hundred to several thousand since the "economy" collapsed. They are all armed to the teeth and none of them believe in the USA as it is today convened. Some have Irakistan War vets who grew up killing, know only killing (and whatever crap they peddle on the radio these days.)

The government is not coming for our popguns, but I suggest you don't show them to anyone you don't intend to kill. --edited.

I love Ben Franklin:
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”

Another version he used:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

But ricketzz: Although I am not willing to give up my rights to keep and bear arms without being on a goverment list, I also remember others he said.

“Never confuse motion with action.”

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”

I am not scared we are losing the country becasue of BHO. I think we can weather him.

Whataplace... I too think we can weather Obama Cyclone but only if we keep the House GOP in 2014.

Great letter!

What a fantastic letter!

The only real tyranny I fear is that from the government. If that makes me a right-wing lunatic who people like Ricketzz and the Dept of Homeland Defense are worried about, then so be it!

You're all confused if you think this is just an Obama storm; no every president from here on out will be crushing our civil liberties whether he be red or blue until the government rises against us in arms.

Raj - "You're all confused if you think this is just an Obama storm; no every president from here on out will be crushing our civil liberties whether he be red or blue until the government rises against us in arms."

That is why we need to elect as many Libertarians as possible...to find out more about the Libertarian Party, go to: http://www.lp.org/. The Libertarian motto is "Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom." Check it out...we can make a difference by voting for people, who are against the status quo in Washington!

Michael

I’m surprised you left the ‘safety’ of Buck’s district and are now living ‘in country’ in the liberal north . . .

In any event, the idea that these small fringe militia groups that practice in the heartland woods fantasizing about overthrowing the government (created by the Founding Fathers no less . . . ) as a motivation to keep military style assault weapons is scary.

The original intent, a popular concept by conservatives here, was that the US at the time of the beginning of this nation ‘had no standing army’.

Thus, citizens were the only defense and thus the 2nd Amendment was created to allow militias pending the creation of a standing army, to possess guns.

Now that we have a standing army, why would citizens want to possess the same type of weapons the army uses?

To stand up against it?

Do you realize the defense budget is:

- about $700 billion dollars per year
- is more than the next 16 nations in total spending
- is five time more than China?

It sounds patriotic to assume you and your followers are going to ‘save me’ from a government of ‘we the people’ that should be looking out of the ‘general welfare’ versus just arming people that know little about our problems.

Anyway, be sure to not dial 911 if your home is being burglarized or robbed . . . likewise, you’d do fine with the 2,000 plus choice of other guns that are not ‘military style assault’ weapons that end up in the hands of idiots that massacre innocent men, women, and now children . . .

As usual, Windy misses the point. He could turn a debate about what dog won best of show at Westminster into some irrational liberal rant.

You know Windy, there are a lot of us conservatives and libertarians that think we spend too much on the military. Unlike you and your single-minded devotion to the subject of military spending, we think we spend too much on everything! How much should we spend Windy? 500 billion? 300 billion? Guess what, if we spent ZERO dollars on defense we would still have a 300 billion dollar deficit!

"Now that we have a standing army, why would citizens want to possess the same type of weapons the army uses?"

Because we can that's why! If I don't like something I don't get it. If a liberal don't like something, they don't want anyone to have it.

Indy. Yamamoto said it would be foolish to try and invade the mainland because there would be an armed citizen behind every blade of grass. YOu think our government does not know that too. Yes they have overwhelming firepower, but you have a choice you can either resist or submit. I will take my chance with resistance versus living under a government that turned its arms on it's own citizens.

Indy I can't thank you enough for your post !!
Indy your are right on "Target" (pun) "Bulls Eye" (pun)
Indy your post was straight "shooting" (pun)

Some Americans think that the Second Amendment is intended mainly as a safeguard against an oppressive government.

As you may have noticed, the breast-beating among certain firearms enthusiasts in this forum has grown increasingly fierce since the start of the new year, especially as the political push for serious gun control has become more earnest.

On talk radio, in the comment threads on Internet Web sites and at almost every other turn, the boasts of self-styled protectors of the Second Amendment have become ever more militant.

There is no record of any legally-constituted militia “defending the people against a tyrannical government” under the Constitution–acts it would construe as treason, under Article 3, Section 3 (“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”) The only way to claim otherwise is to use the Civil War as an example. Even then, using state armies that way fit the Constitution’s definition of treason; it was simply expedient after the war to let the matter go.

Given that, anyone can see that the militia under the Constitution was an instrument of the state from the first, and never meant to safeguard the people from the state. What the NRA is doing is trying to confuse colonial militias–when there was no United States–with militias under the Constitution.

The record likewise makes clear that personal gun ownership was protected by the Second Amendment as a way to arm the militia. Of course, lots of people owned muskets or rifles then anyway. And in general, most people didn’t care. But a glance at the historical and legislative record explains why the Second Amendment has three clauses in one sentence and can’t be understood without considering all of it–screams from the right notwithstanding.

Comments like “because we can” show a lack of understanding of a system that is not about doing anything you want because you can, but doing what is right and proper for the common good.

Thank you SCVPioneer for commenting on this post, "Because we can that's why!"
To quote you SCVPioneer:
"Shows a lack of understanding of a system that is not about doing anything you want because you can, but doing what is right and proper for the common good."
I found the comment flippant with a lack of understanding !!!!!!!

If those in the 1700's had given up their weapons because British troops had them then we would not have a country now.

Yeah, "the common good"... like running up an historic unsustainable national debt; standing by while our ambassador and 3 others were murdered; issuing arms and treasure to the Muslim Brotherhood; issuing guns to Mexican cartels; etc., etc. At leat the Dem Senate woke up and shot down DiFi's assualt weapon ban. See, miracles can happen....

OR: If we don't give Egypt the aid promised in the Arab Israeli Peace Accords they will attack Israel. I know, Jimmy Carter made a "Crappy" deal, but it is what it is.

Benghazi wasn't a terrorist incident and Stevens, et al, were not murdered. It was a battle and the dead Americans are KIA.

Arizona is owned by the NRA. The lack of any meaningful gun laws there ensures the Drug Cartels can buy whatever they want, with relative impunity. "Fast and Furious" was a pimple on the butt of big bear of a problem.

Conservatives have latched onto the bait tossed out by Progressives, thinking there is a campaign to grab guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens.

The paranoia of these people who ignore or don’t understand the term common good and think that freedom means absolute ability to live their lives with little regard to others because they have a "freedom" is a serious problem in this and any free society.

Freedom means responsibility.

SCVPioneer: Your version of the "common good" sounds a little like communism to me. I will stick with the constitution. "The RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED."

So I'll ask the question again, this time of whataplace...

Do you believe that "shall not be infringed" is *absolute*, and that you have a right to possess ANY kind of weapon whatsoever?

People who don't understand the concept of communism, who never read Marx, use that term when they are referring to fascism.

The common good describes a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. This is also how the common good is broadly defined in philosophy, ethics, and political science.

So your opinion is misguided since the Constitution was written for the common good, if you read Jefferson, Franklin or Adams.

If people like whataplace believe the Constitution which was written over 200 years ago by people who believed owning slaves was acceptable; if they don't believe social mores evolve, you get the socio-political situation we have now.

The Constitution contains amendments added in the 20th century illustrating evolving values yet there are people that would repeal these certain amendments and deny rights to others.

The Constitution is not immutable.

Whataplace wrote: If those in the 1700's had given up their weapons because British troops had them then we would not have a country now.

Indy: Had the US a ‘standing army’, the British would have been out of luck.

That’s why we had militias at that time . . .

But riddle me this . . . nations like England, Japan, and Australia, all developed industrialized nations, have much strong gun laws but I don’t see their people being ‘fearful’ of their governments.

And we have a strong Constitution here so what is that you fear?

"... England, Japan, and Australia... have much strong gun laws but I don’t see their people being ‘fearful’ of their governments. And we have a strong Constitution here so what is that you fear?"

The obvious answer, Indy, is that none of those nations had to fight an outside power for their sovereignty. One of our nation's most revered documents, the Declaration of Independence, was drafted by men who understood governmental tyranny. Their distrust led them to create our nation.

Japan, until 1989, had an emperor.

"England" and Australia are both currently ruled by the royal crown.

The more complex answer to your silly riddle lies in your mischaracterization of the Constitution.

Our Constitution isn't strong; it's simple.

The framers understood the value of creating a document that could be read and understood by all, from the Boston lawyer to the Georgian tobacco farmer. They wanted all Americans to be active players in the social contract of our republic. They knew the importance of an informed public and the check that would put against a usurpatious government. They wanted us to be able to point to a clause and shout from the top of our lungs "you can't do that!" And they understood that shouting and pointing aren't always effective, so they limited their ability to abuse their authority via the second amendment.

The Second Amendment was designed so the new country always was ready to protect itself from foreign aggression.

Our built in system of checks and balances is more of a protection against the government with judges protecting citizens in addition to rights set-forth in the Bill of Rights.

The paranoia about the president going after guns becomes moot when you consider that in 5 years of his presidency no attempt has been made to take or even limit gun ownership until the horrible killings that seem to be happening more frequently.

When 72% of Americans want more rigorous background checks and 56% favour restricting assault weapons, the will of the people have to be taken into consideration.

The Dept of Homeland Defense just purchased 1.4 billion, yes BILLION, rounds of ammo and the guns to go with it. Enough to fight a war for 20 years. They refuse to say why they want this staggering amount of ammunition when asked by congress. And some of you sheep question why so many of us fear and distrust the government? In my opinion the government has done nothing to give me a feeling of trust about anything they do. The real pathetic part is that dems and libs used to say the same thing when Bush was running around crapping on the people and the constitution but now that Obama is doing it, well, that's juuuuuuuust fine!

Publish a link to verify the purchase of this quantity of ammunition, I work for a prominent think tank and we do not have information pertaining to this so I have to ask you to prove this.

SCVPioneer: Below is a link to a story published yesterday talking about how congress is trying to get answers from Napolitano on the purchase of ammunition. Also Forbes did a piece earlier this month. For such a highly published issue to not be heard of by your "think tank" I think you should get a few more members who are internet savvy or can read a newspaper. here are a couple quotes from the story as well as the link:

Speaking at CPAC with Infowars and We Are Change reporter, Luke Rudkowski, Congressman Timothy Huelscamp revealed this week that the Department of Homeland Security has refused to answer questions from “multiple” members of Congress regarding its recent purchase of huge amounts of weapons and ammunition. They refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t really have an answer for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions,” he added.

“It comes down to during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’s feet to the fire?”


The Congressman’s comments come in the wake of a demand for answers from New Jersey Congressman Leonard Lance on the same subject.

“I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done and I have every confidence that the oversight committee ….should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief, “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”

The DHS has purchased over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the past year – enough to wage a 20 year plus war. Earlier this month, Forbes Magazine called for a “national conversation” on the matter.

The bills are available for the oversight committee so there is the "proof"
it is not a secret.

http://www.infowars.com/big-sis-refuses-to-answer-congress-on-ammo-purchases/

whataplace, thank you for the info. My organization deals primarily with geo-political issues in Asia and so like you we rely on news sources for information in the U.S.

My colleague believes that this purchase is to replace aging ammunition, however we both know this could be a smoke screen.

Best to stay vigilant.

SCVPioneer: I just logged back on to say sorry for being a little snippy about my previous comment. Glad you let me slide on it. Good luck with your research.

SCV, I've read about it several times in the news, and not just on Fox..haha.

Not only them, but other governemnt departments have been buying ammo and guns as well. You tell me why the IRS, Social Security Admin, Dept of ED and many others need ammunition? And so much of it as well? Your colleague is being naive SCV. One does not buy 1.4 billion rounds to replace 1.4 billion rounds of aging ammo. And if true, why did we buy so much only to let it sit and age?

The older I get, the more I distrust the government. They are NOT on our side.

Dumbounded wrote: The Dept of Homeland Defense just purchased 1.4 billion, yes BILLION, rounds of ammo and the guns to go with it. Enough to fight a war for 20 years. They refuse to say why they want this staggering amount of ammunition when asked by congress.

Indy: This reminds me of the nuclear build up in America during the cold war where we could literally kill every human on earth multiple times.

How would you kill somebody more than once?

Yet, the defense department funded by our congress at that time, keep building more and more nuclear warheads . . .

Why spend money on something that you have enough of already? That’s the point here.

Has anyone inquired to Buck McKeon for the answer you seek?

In any event this type of stuff goes back to President Eisenhower that warned us that the defense industry (military industrial complex as he coined it) will always be advocating for more and more weapons since they make money off of that.

So America has a history of war mongering and using ‘fear’ to build more weapons that we need . . .

Dumbounded wrote: Not only them, but other governemnt departments have been buying ammo and guns as well.

Indy: Not only the government but the public!

I guess those buying the extra ammo are ready for battle sooner or later.

I just don’t see this ‘war’ in America happening but why are so many Americans preparing for war on our soil?

When the parents are taking their kids to the local public schools, should we have the national guard occupying our city?

Should we bring all of our military home for abroad to protect the homeland from us?

This paranoia about overthrowing the government is just that . . . paranoia . . .

It’s fostered by fringe groups of people that have it pounded into their heads that only they, as individuals, really know what the US is all about . . . and reject any form of government that doesn’t meant that narrow view.

These are folks resisting reasonable gun laws . . .

And as we seen, since New Town, another 3,000 American or so have been murdered by guns . . .

Is this the true price of liberty?

You know what Indy, if I'm wrong I'm just wrong. What if you're wrong?

You sit comfortably in your chair and call me paranoid when the government, not even the military, buys a billion rounds of ammo. This isn't the army buying ammo, but the Dept of Homeland Defense. Who could they possibly use that against? Yes, the public is buying lots of ammo but that is a personal choice and 99.9% of us that are purchasing are no threat. Why is our government buying so much ammo when the only conceivable reason would be to potentially use it against the people? Again, this is not the army or a police force buying SO MUCH ammo. You tell me why the IRS or the Dept of Ed needs ammo?

When I speak to people like you and get your reaction I simply tell them the following: If I never have to use anything I've purchased for the protection of my home and property, I'll be happy. If ever I need to use anything I've purchased, I'll be happy that I have it. You on the other hand are screwed and you will be one of those pathetic people on the roof of your house with a big sign that says "help me".

I don't care if the government is or is not a threat. I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Affirmed by the Supreme court. I am not giving up this right (or weakening it) for anyone or any reason.

Fox news link, CNN news link, and my favorite for getting a quick overview of all news is drudgereport2013

DHS has responded to questions about its ammunition purchases and what the ammo is used for:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/22/dhs-denies-massive-ammunition-purchase

Much ado about nothing, except for the paranoid.

Dumbounded wrote: You know what Indy, if I'm wrong I'm just wrong. What if you're wrong? You sit comfortably in your chair and call me paranoid when the government, not even the military, buys a billion rounds of ammo.

Indy: I think part of the issue you have is in seeing things in absolute terms.

The paranoia about government that has republicans willing to spending $700 billion dollars on defense that works out to about $9,000.00 per family of four, is that appropriate?

And was it appropriate to build a nuclear stock pile that can kill every human on earth multiple times?

And what did Buck McKeon do to speak out against the outrageous purchase of said ammunition?

In any event, I searched Yahoo and can’t linked the AP article noting this purchase amount although plenty of conservative websites refer to it.

Do you have the link?

And 1.6 billion bullets is what, about 5 rounds per American?

"Secure the blessings of liberty for me and my friends."

People who get their news from Fox News and Drudge are badly misinformed and pathologically paranoid. Now it turns out there may be a neurological predisposition that makes some people fearful and suspicious, and that the abnormality is a reliable predictor of reactionary politics in the unfortunate sufferer. If they weren't also psychopaths I'd take up a collection for them.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149362/study:_conservatives_have_larger_'fear_centers'_in_their_brains

ricketzz: If you were familiar with Drudge report you would know it is just provides links to newspapers worldwide. An excellent source for a quick overview of all current stories. This is the reason most staffers at the white house, no matter what party, check it several times a day. I also mentioned CNN I guess they pass your muster?

"People who get their news from Fox News and Drudge are badly misinformed and pathologically paranoid"

People who say things like the above have poo poo in their heads.

http://www.ihavepoopooinmyhead.org/sanctimonious/liberals_are_braindead

Dumbounded wrote: "People who get their news from Fox News and Drudge are badly misinformed and pathologically paranoid" People who say things like the above have poo poo in their heads.

Indy: LOL!

In any event for your review again on Fox:

“In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.”
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

It also did some more lying here: Fox News Chief, Roger Ailes, Urged Employee to Lie, Records Show
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/nyregion/25roger-ailes.html

From the little I watch Fox, it appears to be little more than GOP TV . . . with their ‘news casters’ peppering in their conservative ideology views . . . as part of the ‘news’.

Caution to ‘guest readers’: be careful and be sure to get other news to see what you’re being told is truthful . . .

CNN is the "fatty beef trimmings" of the journalism cheeseburger. Fox News is the "pink slime". Jon Stewart is the "cheese". I like Democracy Now, RT and Aljazeera on TV (all on PBS SoCal Time Warner basic). I listen to Thom Hartmann (everywhere) and the BBC World Service (vpr.net). I get breaking news from Twitter, where I monitor a couple dozen international journalists. McClatchey is generally very credible, and I follow the Sacramento Bee.

Really, though, stuff like Fox News and CNN and MSNBC and HLN etc., are infotainment at best. One thing I do not like about Fox News is that they appear to want to make their viewers get all worked up about trivial matters. That can lead to psychological, then physical dependence after a while. "Fear" should not be trifled with.