Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

On Gun Control, the Second Amendment, and the Future of the United States of America

The issue of gun control vs. gun freedom has been debated endlessly in the United States. This is a good thing, because it shows that civic participation is alive and well in this country, despite the best efforts of mainstream opinion arbiters who are always hard at work trying to force a generic, dispassionate consensus on everyone.

The nature of the gun control/gun freedom debate basically centers around two questions: does the Second Amendment really protect the individual right to own a gun, and does private gun ownership actually make us safer or put us in greater danger?

The Second Amendment

The precise wording of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is as follows:

“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.”

Controversy over the real meaning of this Amendment has been stimulated by the first two sections, which would seem to indicate that the right to own a gun is contingent upon the need for a militia. Since we now have a regular, standing military presence in the United States, as well as a National Guard that could be seen as the modern equivalent of a militia, it has been argued that restrictions on individual gun ownership can now be justified, since a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of the state. Up until 2008, the most recent Supreme Court decision that had addressed this question, U.S. vs. Miller (1939), accepted the contingency argument, and ruled that the Second Amendment did not really protect the right of the individual to own a gun in any absolute way.

The problem with this interpretation is that it completely ignores what the Founding Fathers meant with the second part of their conditional phrase, “being necessary to
the security of a free state.” The reason why the Founders placed so much faith in the militia is because they had experienced repression at the hands of the British government’s standing army, and they did not want to risk having the same thing happen again. In other words, the Founders of the United States feared the possibility of a standing army being used against the people and against freedom, even if its alleged reason for existing was to protect the nation from outside invasion. Therefore, as an alternative to a standing army they preferred a militia, so the people would be able to protect themselves from tyranny and oppression no matter what the source.

So if the creation of a standing military was potentially a vehicle for oppression, then how could the creation of such a force at some point in the future possibly negate the people’s right to bear arms and defend themselves and their freedom? Just because militias have now fallen out of use does not mean that they are gone forever. If economic calamity or environmental disaster or terrorist attack in the future should cause chaos and collapse, the people may need to organize militias again for the purposes of self-protection. The necessity of militias is perpetual, not conditional, and therefore the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms permanently and unconditionally—just as the Supreme Court has now correctly ruled in the 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller decision that struck down a District of Columbia law banning certain kinds of handgun ownership.

Unfortunately, now that the Court has finally come down firmly on the side of the people’s unconditional right to bear arms, there are some trying to do an end run around the Second Amendment. In March 2011, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan issued a ruling declaring that the names of everyone possessing a gun permit in the state should be made publically available.

According to the Attorney General, the public has a “legitimate interest” in having access to this information. Certainly, burglars and other assorted felons would be very interested in obtaining this information, but besides that, it is difficult to ascertain what exactly this public interest could consist of. As usual, we are always left to speculate. Perhaps the real idea is to somehow try and stigmatize or shame people who have chosen to buy guns to protect themselves. After all, we’re always depicted as gun totin’ crackpots. Or perhaps it is meant to make things easier for a future police state (my personal guess), which might declare some sort of “state of emergency” in the event of societal collapse and use those circumstances as an excuse to round up everyone’s guns in the name of public safety.

The rationale and the potential for abuse with something like this is clearly off the charts, and it helps to show just how dangerous the mentality behind gun control can be when it is allowed to run wild. We know why we own guns and we are all law-abiding citizens. Unless an individual has shown him or herself to abuse this right, why on earth should we all have to take part in this exercise? We aren’t out there being Jesse James or robbing liquor stores or popping off our shotguns in public places. We simply want to protect our families, which is not far fetched, given the state of things now and the potential for things to get worse as the economy continues to take its downward spiral.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but seriously, what’s next?

In Self-Defense

Between 1990 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who believed the country needed more restrictive handgun laws dropped from 78% to 39%. What this reveals is that the clear majority of American citizens believe anyone who wants to purchase a gun for the purposes of personal protection should be able to do so. Of course, there is always debate over whether or not all types of guns should be legal and disagreement here has been used as a rationale for government control of gun sales in the form of regulation, registration and the banning of certain types of weapons.

While it has been shown that homicide rates are higher in countries with less-restrictive gun laws, a clear cause-and-effect relationship has never been established. So it is quite likely that the reason why gun ownership is higher in countries with high rates of violent crime is that people are rightly afraid and are buying weapons to protect themselves. This is of course a perfectly rational response, and it is hard to argue that any law-abiding citizen who chooses to carry a gun for the purposes of self-protection should not be allowed to do so.

And once again, we come back to the same situation we mentioned before— what if, for whatever reason, there is a total societal collapse and chaos reigns in the streets? In circumstances such as these, what we would need to defend ourselves against what could be something far more threatening and dangerous than a home burglary or attempted mugging on the street. In circumstances such as these, we may need weapons that are far more powerful and can provide far more protection than a handgun or a shotgun. Therefore, we need to think very carefully about whether or not we should support “common sense” restrictions on certain types of firearms. In the end, we must be prepared to defend ourselves and our families in all circumstances, including those that are the most dire and extreme.


While we can, to a certain extent, respect the sincere intentions of those who believe that gun control laws can help prevent violence and make us all safer, we also have to beware of those who would take those weapons in order to dominate the populace even further. In the end, we must reject those good-intentioned arguments as short-sighted and naïve. No one, of course, should have to buy a gun if they don’t want to, and they should be free to try and persuade you not to buy one, either. But if you finally decide to buy a gun, or several guns, of whatever type, in order to protect yourself and your loved ones from whatever dangers you believe are coming, then you should be entirely free to make that decision for yourself, with no government interference whatsoever. After all, if we follow the letter of the law to obtain a permit, why then would we turn around and use the gun for anything other than protection?

Red Alert Warning! Bombshell New Book Reveals…
How To Survive The Coming Martial Law In America


© Copyright Off The Grid News


  1. I don’t understand you write:
    “Unfortunately, now that the Court has finally come down firmly on the side of the people’s unconditional right to bear arms, there are some trying to do an end run around” Is it unfortunate that the people have the right or that some are trying to do a work around??
    I’ve just started my 2nd cup of coffee so maybe the statement will become clearer to me later.

    • dennis5555 says, you didn’t include the entire sentence in your comment, but it seems pretty clear to the rest of us that you didn’t read it properly because the author made a clear point. however, perhaps the author could’ve written it like this;

      “Unfortunately (now that the Court has finally come down firmly on the side of the people’s unconditional right to bear arms), there are some trying to do an end run around the Second Amendment.

  2. The reason homicide rates are higher in countries with less restrictive gun laws is that most countries don’t distinguish between murder and a self defense homicide. So if someone broke into a home and the homeower killed the intruder, that would show up as another murder, which the media and others will always interpret as “bad.”

    The reason our US violent crime rate is so high is because our court system is broken (I know because I work in it), and violent criminals are given low bails and repeatedly released to commit more violent crime. Lock up the criminals for 4 times the amount they currently get sentenced for, and you will see a drop in violent crime.

    • I agree with you b/c I, too, spent years, sometimes tears, in it as a plaintiff. I1st noticed it when I proved to a judge that I did not make an unsafe start from a curb a policeman? wrote me up for, b/c others testified I exited a driveway as a car sped so fast from a mile away, through Malibu on PCH, that it soon reached me w/o incident, though, but judge, nevertheless
      chose to believe sheriff or police, whichever it was, who gave wrong testimony. A common but minor miscarriage of what purports to be justice. A Hollywood policeman long ago begged me not to file a report for assault against my husband, so I delayed it in case this now dead, I thank God, former husband might reconsider his actions, which led that Police Dep’t. to “lose” that filing within a year. Next. I reported to the truly ‘Lost’ Hills Sheriff Station that a vehicle attempted to drive me off our cliffside road, at which point I moved into a shelter, since I had seen that car many times waiting for me before, then changed direction course. When I went to pick up that report, it was not written up as they stated there, BUT found recording of my t/c report to them, thankfully. Next time they came, 3 of them had guns drawn on me, b/c I told them I had a gun, so “drive non-stop curves here slowly” but did not see the scratches on my lock, nor return in the a. m. when seen more clearly. Maybe another time came next, when officer came to take report, but left his clipboard here w/ it on it, never to be picked up on request. Ispent 21 years under these attempts and threats, one when broke down porch railings in attempt to reach a deck via the roof b/c 6 of these hoodlums ex-hubbie sent couldn’t break down my handcrafted door, Clearly, this is not to get a response from you, rather that others know, too, but to add that the justice system failings lie deeper than the courts. In domestic abuse meetings, almost 1/2 the attendees were law enforcement wives, but in the end the justice system redeemed my seekings when a beautiful courageous judge ruled against this man re my health bills, she now on the highest court of this state, w/ none daring to trying to best her for that seat.
      Some one should bring the flakey attorneys I had before a hearing, as I won that judgment in pro per.

    • One respondent mentioned murder and homicide earlier. They are technically different. There’s a cause and a manner of death; a cause could be a GSW to the head and the manner could be Accident, Homicide or Suicide. Homicide means death at the hands of another. Murder is a legal term which prosecutors use. People get the two confused a lot.

  3. You say “While it has been shown that homiside rates are higher in countries with less restrictive gun laws.”
    The opposite is true. Just look at UK and Austrailia’s rise in crime with the addition of more gun laws and the taking away the right to keep and bare arms!

    • To expand on your comment: The following three countries that have a ban on gun owner ship, UK, Australia, and Japan, also have the highest crime rates in the world. On the other end of the scale, Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world because almost all it’s citizens own and have guns in their homes. Go figure, huh?
      The founders meant that the people should have the ablity to protect themselves from an oppressive and invasive government. If the government knows who has guns and where the guns are it’s easy for them to come and take them away. Without the right to keep and bare arms how will the people protect themselves.
      If America is the last stand for freedom in the world then Americans must be the last stand of freedom in America.

      • Thank you, Heavyduty! The statement “While it has been shown that homicide rates are higher in countries with less-restrictive gun laws…” is simply not true. I have yet to meet that criminal that obeys gun laws! Don’t fall for the manipulation of statistics that the anti-gunners are so famous for. The Swiss example is truer. Gun related crimes drop in every municipality, county or state where gun control is reduced or eliminated.

  4. I believe gun control supporters have two lines of thought , one is total disarmament for the purpose of control , the other is that they are cowards and would not defend themselves or their families even if they had to and feel that you should be as helpless as they are .

    • The Other White Meat

      You’re right on both accounts; I used to have the same mentallity when I considered myself a lib. PRAISE THE LORD, I SAW THE LIGHT !!!!!!!!!

    • You put it well, Buck. Government wants power over us through control, since most in power now are fulminating with envy, greed, and jealousy that they could not earn the state of influence other had, thus their envious tearing down of those who worked to benefit family & society.

      Re your 2nd point re lack of courage, I had that type of husband, but more so Hilary, who ff. her husband in taking our only defense from us, out of cowardly fear.

  5. This is one of the best forums for the preservation of freedom in this country and for the world in general. If the libs and progressives (that’s spelled s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-t-s) would have their way we would not be partisipating in this or any discussion because they would love nothing more than to shred the Constitution and take away all our God given rights as stated in the Bill of Rights and make it illegal to voice our oppisition to the behemoth that is our federal government.
    We must stand up, let our voices be heard and let these leftist politicians know that the citizens of the United States of America will not look the other way while they steal our country out from under us. Haven’t they done enough already?
    Let it be known that while the government would love for the people to rise up in violent rebellion we must not. They are looking for any excuse that would enable them to declare Marshal Law and then the Constitution is thrown out the window. We must work the system from the inside just as they do. We must fill the courts with like minded judges who value this country and it free way of life. We must elect our repersentitives with the knowledge that they are there at our pleasure and we must vote accordingly. We must secure our borders and no longer support illegal (that’s spelled c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l) invaders. We must remenber that freedom is not free. We must all pay one way or another to preserve our way of life or we will lose it. Some pay with their vote, some with their money by donating to disserving politicians, and some pay with their life definding this country in foriegn lands. (You don’t have to support the war but you must support our warriors!) Most improtantly we must return this country to God and the laws He gave us that we have let be so easily over ruled.
    This Memorial Day and everyday please remember those that have given their all so we may enjoy our freedom .
    A Concerned Vet

  6. Here is true Gun Control Anyone who commits a crime using a Gun forfites his or her life. Don’t take MY GUNS because of some criminal. I’m tired of being pushed around by evil people. Anyone who harms a child or rapes a woman should should be put to death immediatly. I’m also tired of paying billions ao my tax dollars a year for housing scumlbags. First offence FLOG THEM and let them go. Second same offence forfites their life. For minor crimenals while their in prison they must go to school to further their education, not lift weights smoke cigs and read porono.

    • Amen, John! You’re just a hair extreme for my taste, but just barely. The sentiment is what I agree with. Criminals today face little or no consequence. When “Civics” was still taught in school, we learned that convicted criminals loose their civil rights. Now it seems to be selective. While incarcerated, they should have to take part in long, productive, hard work days. Grow their own food; plant, harvest and shovel their food’s waste; cook their own meals, do their own mending and laundry; and scrub their own cells. Maybe dig their own latrines. If they suffered from good old-fashioned fatigue, maybe there would be less mischief. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of my personal heroes!

  7. We have the right to own guns if we choose, I feel ALL AMERICANS should have guns. We cannot rely on others to take care of us. We need to take care of each other, our family, neighbors, etc. !!!!!! Where are the police when you need them !!!!!! The crime has been done. WE need to take control of our own safety.
    Buy a gun and learn to use it !!!! God Bless and Take Care

  8. Can;t have it both ways folks.

    First you claim US constitution, they you claim Amendment X states rights.

    Unless the states are in favor of the US Constitution and all its amendments,
    you will be SOL. States rights control under the Tenth Amendment, and supercede
    the us govt trying to make laws outside their constitutionally mandated items.

    Read the Thomas Woods book, Nullification, and you will bet a better understanding
    of what I am mentioning.

    Example with which you are familiar today: Obamacare forced on everyone?
    Hardly, how many states are asserting their Tenth Amendment rights not to follow
    BOs folly? Many of them. Reason? Amendment X, and Obamacare is something
    outside the US govt duties under the US Constitution.

    So if the states want gun control, they can easily assert t heir states rights. If you
    don’t like it, well…there are altenatives: leave that pitiful state, stay and fight and lose
    and spend time in jail, or…


    • Cosmo,
      You are right that states’ rights trump federal laws – like Obamacare. States should excercise their right and tell the feds to go jump in a lake, when they try to enforce it. Anything is true nullification of laws, that the states – as sovereigns – see as foreign to their interests, and as breaking the constitutional compact they made with the other sovereign states to “form a more perfect union”, etc.

      As signatories of the constitutional compact – and persuant to the Tenth Amendment – states have an obligation to their citizens to redress their grievances against the federal government thru an organized nullification process. Such a process can and should be worked out by an Association of states that have covenanted together to uphold the Tenth Amendment against the encroachments of unconstitutional federal statutes and regulations. Each state with membership in a Tenth Amendment Assosiation could then send elected representatives to weigh specific congressional acts or executive regulations, and to decide how the states ought to “push back” against unconstitutional federal excesses. They could be designated as Tenth Amendment Assemblies. Such organized assemblies of sovereign citizens would represent the sovereign states and their interests – which would then be balanced with those of the federal government. Such groups might be called into session by a majority of the states that are in an Association to respond to an egregious constitutional violation; and may also sit for a few months every two years to wade through federal excesses that might not call for a special session.

      Such an extra-constitutional group would much better be the result of a constitutional amendment. But, let’s honest. When would such an amendment EVER pass with 2/3 support in congress? The only way to have this check on the feds would be to make it up as an informal agreement between various states; sort of like the National Governor’s Association. But, this would quickly get constitutionally challanged. Then, the states would be forced to confron the Supreme Court, and IT’S unconstitutional excesses.

      Two other options:
      1. Add such an assembly (what the senate was designed to do) by Constitutional Convention.
      2. Repeal the 17th Amendment; and return the Senate to being the representatives of the states’ interests.

      Neither option works well. Both would require a constitutional convention, as nothing like this will ever get through congress. States have to treat the feds the way they’ve been treated. “We’re doing this! Deal with it!”

      That’s where every confrontation will lead, anyway!

  9. Great discussion, Guys!

    There are political elements, philosophical elements, even some preaching! (can I get an “Amen?”) But that is only half of the arguement. The other half of the arguement on gun control is, well, Gun-Control. It’s about where my round is going to hit and whether or not I use one hand or two. See, because owning a gun, be it rifle, shotgun, or hand gun is pointless unless the owner knows how to safely and efficiently operate it.

    So get to the range all you law-abiding fire arms owners! And practice your Gun-Control so you will be able to defend against their gun control! 🙂

  10. Because of our corrupt justice system we need our guns to protect our lives and our freedom. Criminals that would harm us are not being punished or being incarcerated long enough. Soon the police will not be able to respond and respond in time when because of economic colapse and food doesn’t get distributed into the citys that gangs will have to go out from the city and steal and kill just so they can eat and survive. Owning a gun assures me that I am able to protect myself, my property, family and friends. Our government has brainwashed the people so much into this right / left mentality that it is keeping the people divided and stupid. All you americans must wake up and take back your country. We are loosing many of our rights and you people are to stupid to even realize what’s going on. Freedom to own a gun is one of the most important freedoms we have because it allows the retention of all our other rights

    • You wrote,”Our government has brainwashed the people so much into this right / left mentality that it is keeping the people divided and stupid.”

      I’ve never understood this argument. The only people who could espouse such tripe as this quote must believe that politics doesn’t matter at all; or that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats”. I don’t believe that’s true.

      Left and right are simply sliding-scale concepts used to describe a person’s political beliefs.

      The further a person is to the right, the more they like the idea of a small government that allows individuals to pursue their own desires. The government should ideally be muscular enough to protect individual rights, but not so strong as to stomp on those rights. From the center to the extreme right comprises a lot of political ground. Some people consider Nazism to be an extreme right-wing governing philosophy. But, it clearly is a big government idea (notice the word “socialism” in National Socialism) that desires the government to run the economy for the sake of national or racial benefits. So, Nazism is actually a leftist philosophy. An extremist right-wing philosophy is Anarchy. This idea would have us live in a “state of nature” with no government at all. This idea would simply lead quickly to tyranny. The strongest individual would seek power, and impose his will on the rest of society.

      The left side of the spectrum sees group rights and security as more important than individual liberties. From the center, government grows progressively more powerful and intrusive into people’s lives. Rights are meant to be ceded for the sake of social cohesion, and security. The further left a government grows, the less important are individual rights. The leftist extreme of Communism is a collectivist understanding of social organization; in which the government runs the economy of the nation, and the lives of it’s citizens.

      The scale slides as people try to weight the individual’s rights against the need to hold a society together that is a safe place for people to express their lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. Thus, governments must have some power. Giving some power to government automatically removes that same power from individuals; thus the sliding-scale.
      100% Gov’t Power/Group Security = 0% Individual Rights Communism / extreme left
      0% Gov’t Power/Group Security = 100% Individual Rights Anarchy / extreme right (for about 5 minutes)

      Most all societies organize somewhere between these extremes. Therefore, I really fail to see how such ideas can even BE characterized as brainwashing.

      • You are indeed correct. leftist nowadays have been brainwashed into the beleif that the Nazis were right wing. And that by being left wing they cannot by definition be nazis, no matter what they do. Unfortunately they are lifting their antisemetic views and big govt control right out of the NAZI playbook. National Socialist Liberals, maybe they call it that cause liberals are easier to convince that govt is right and people are wrong. It is a dangerous pathway, and we are heading right down it again…
        The Col

  11. I do believe gneal is exactly right. This is ideally the difference between the right and left and the way this government started out. Now I think there is a global “agenda” that both the right and left are complicite in that stifle our freedoms and do more to promote an elite class structure and bigger more controlling government. The difference between right and left are not clear like they use to be when this country was young. I do believe they are both becomeing more gray an indistinct from one another. My desire is for more people to not worry about how their family votes either R or D or voting a straight R or D ticket, but to research your candidates and how they’ve voted in the past and go vote. I just think the lines are becoming more blurred and it’s harder to tell a wolf from a sheep especially if they all wear sheeps clothing!

  12. Interesting…
    Supreme Court sez we can have guns.
    There ain’t no political parties, just a liars club.
    States do rule, BUT, states may not overrule The Constitution.
    Then there is that ‘end run’…
    >Our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (with Obama’s approval) is actively pursuing a UN Treaty that bans most guns in order to stop terrorism…this is happening now.
    IF approved, no member countries residents will be allowed to own any guns other than bolt action rifles, regular shotguns, and revolvers…no magazines.
    IF anyone wants to take action on this issue, visit the National Gun Rights web site. Issue is covered, petitions, letters, etc.
    *What is coming ain’t gonna be nice.
    However, there are ways to fight back. Go to ‘The Freedom School’ (of Texas) web site, read and learn.
    >>Don’t matter how anyone feels about it all, GET READY!
    Look to providing for yourself and family.
    Stock food, water, and weapons. Then add those things that won’t exist: toilet paper, tampax, and hand operated machinery. Tools to make what you will no longer be able to buy at any price.
    Get hold of gold and silver coin, you just might find it useful when the dollar becomes toilet paper…
    Yeah, I know, doom gloom and nasty too…
    I’ve been involved in all this for some fifteen years, and I do get inside info on things few others get or can find.
    So, no, this ain’t your average conspiracy theory nutcase blowin off.
    The United States has already defaulted…yup, for real. Missed a couple of payments already. Now you know why ‘they’ want to barrow $600 Billion for just Augusts bills…
    There are no jobs because that would empower the people…
    That super duper inflation ain’t hit yet because the banks lose too much freedom if that cash is used…it sits in the corner gathering dust.
    Remember a few years ago how the news reported on coming changes in basic life style? Remember that a dawning of a ‘new age’ in all things was working its way into everything?
    That was the point at which those in power started the shift from the things all were familiar with towards a new world…
    Wasn’t that long ago that most everything was fine, etc.
    Thing about it all is that we are at present, only in the ‘beginning stages’ of that transition…
    The sh ain’t hit the proverbial fan just yet.
    The timelines all look at this year as being the most painful of the whole transition.
    Possibilities include this summer, end of June to August; and by fall from August to November.
    North Army Command is staging to enforce martial law…and rounding people up.
    I posted the reported F.E.M.A. Concentration/Relocation Camps on Obama’s web site…
    Then there is the ignored Homeland Security Act. A timed provision in it created what the A.C.L.U. calls ‘The Constitutional Free Zone’. 100 miles inland from all our national borders, there is no Constitution…
    There are just a few of them nice cool actions by our so called ‘representatives’…and had the gall to extend The Homeland Security Act!?
    Me thinks we needs another Tea party, only this time let’s see if politicians float, hmmm?

  13. First off i’m a heroin addict have been for over ten years and i’m only 28. my general consensus is I agree with most of your comments for the argument of gun freedom but, in my years of using behind the lines, and all the danger I put myself in(in my opinion I have needed a gun zero percent of the time.And I am apparently in the one percentile in needing protection. ) In conclusion criminals or drug users are not anywhere near the problem, its all about the person and the attitude they carry. If you chalk ur loses up to experience, motives and attitudes, without these, there’s no need for violence. Now on the other hand the people that have made this experience possible where the wrong drugs are encouraged and provided( alcohol, cocaine, crack, meth and , heroin) and the “in my opinion, right drugs are frowned upon aka marijuana, LSD, mushrooms,ibogain, auhuashca”.

  14. Obama is making me sick. The democrats have always made me sick. The republicans are making me sick. What is being done to our country is making me sick. When The courts overide and Institute laws that the people don’t want it makes me sick. These are black robed tyrants. When our votes no longer matter or count what then? Is there a time when revolution and even violent revolution becomes nessesary. We are no longer in control of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We all must remember this part of the Declaration of Independance. –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

  15. Sadly Chuck, have to agree with you. Our country is in dire straits and no easy fix is on the horizon. Current events should be setting off alarms for any person with even a dab of common sense. Ate up politicians and corprate scam artists have literally sold us down the river. We’re backed into a corner, slow but sure. Question is, are we ballsy enough to come out of it ?

  16. The old timers are ballsy enough but the younger generation don’t have a clue. The younger generation (the ones who will lead this country) have been dumbed down to the extreme. The family unit is being broken down and made to be irrelevant. We plop our kids in front of the T.V. and let Beavis and Butthead, Southpark and the sluts of sex and the city be their babysitters. American history and the knowledge of the founding fathers are being replaced by global history and there’s always political correctness run amok. Our young men are being taught to be more effeminate and our young women are being taught to be more sexually aggresive. How is this type of generation going to lead this country. They are not! They will back down from any confrontation. They will not know how to assert power. They do not know how to be a rugged individualist. As long as they “feel” good is all that matters. They do not understand sacrifice and commitment don’t know the meaning of steadfastness. They will compromise forever. In order to change the hearts and minds of the younger generation you must first change you. You must not care if you are the popular one or not. You need to be a soldier and a leader.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *