Son of a WWII Marine raider wounded 15APR1945 on Okinawa and a non-graduate nurse. Eldest of six. USMC;64-68, service included ChuLai,Viet Nam, 1st Mar.Div. 2511, 2**,E-5. Brother of two other Marines. Law enforcement uniformed grunt for 21 1/2 years in the crime infested south-end of a major Southern California city. Father of another Marine and veteran of Desert Storm. Grandfather of two boys,and girl. Married to the most remarkably tolerant woman in this world. Conservative Contact only through FR. To allow otherwise invites confrontation.

"Molon Labe” The original intent of the founders, like it or not, was that the militia, every able bodied man (and now woman), possess weapons and equipment to match that of the soldier in order to prevent tyranny of the government and for self-defense and the procurement of food. You may believe that or not. I have read their writings and they are written in plain language an adult could comprehend. Possessing arms to repel invasion, quell insurrection, or throw off tyranny requires weapons of war that are meant TO KILL PEOPLE, THE ENEMIES OF LIBERTY. The second amendment was only included as recognition by the government the right exists although the right is a ‘natural’ one, meaning with or without government sanction. Repealing it does not negate the right only the recognition. But if you choose not to believe me I have one question. How do you propose to take them from me without justifying my having them for the reasons stated? Force of arms? Molon Labe. (Come and take them) There are six components to a cartridge of ammunition. The case, primer, powder, projectile, sound and fury. I’ll let you have the last three as my rebuttal to your argument.

I have been performing a P&L analysis of government actions for most of my life relative to the “…general welfare…” clause of the constitution. To date based upon the results of my analysis; the L’s far outweigh the P’s to the degree we, as citizens, have been affected in the negative. Examination and analysis of the data collected strongly suggests the need for reorganization is required to avoid further, and possibly irreparable, harm to the body politic. Failing that a closing of the company doors is the only viable resolution.

I used to present facts and logic in my debates until I realized there are no facts or logical debate to be had with some people. Now I listen to their demands and simply say “No” in response when we differ. I have that right and they do not have the authority to enforce their demands unless what I am engaged in damages their property, limits their rightful liberty or is injurious to their lives. There is no logical argument to be had with another individual, or group of individuals, whose intent is to deprive you of the possession of a tool which is multifaceted in the variety of its uses; especially so when that tool is deemed by you as being integral to your continued existence, as their analytical faculties are impaired. You are dealing with those who are affected with an ancient mental disorder for which there is no cure, only a treatment. The only effective responses are to warn the person or persons to desist in their effort to pursue an incorrect line of thought and commit an act which would place them in danger of injury and when they continue, which they will since they are mentally dysfunctional, to resist with only that force necessary to convince them of the errors in their flawed analyses, their decision making processes and the acts they commit which follow as a result. The language you use to convey this information, the manner in which it is delivered and degree of verbosity used in the message, will be dictated by the immediacy of a response required in the moment. The most effective responses limiting verbosity and indicating a firm stand on your part in enforcing a refusal to their demands might be simply put by stating the following, “Come and take it”, or better yet, “Try to take it”, which more clearly indicates you will resist the attempt, spoken in the language they understand.