• Erica


  • nightlight

    Why only 65%??? Did the other 35% lose their brains or their power of reason???

    • David R. Nemirow

      The answer is simple. Too many have never read the Constitution, and even fewer have ever read the Federalist Papers that outline in some of the papers why the Second Amendment exists. Even more disturbing is the fact that such matters are not being taught, or are being taught in a perverted way by left wing liberal teachers and professors who twist the meanings to suit their own agendas. If you have children or grandchildren, do as I am doing: Research the truth, and teach them that which the education system does not.

      • Mitchina

        Hey now… somewhere in those papers Dany Glover has found “code” talk about guns being needed to keep slaves down. Come on, man… can’t you see – racism is in everything and everywhere all the time! (sarcasim)

        • carrieanne

          I only recently noticed that Danny Glover is on the left(but who in Hollywood isn’t?). If he has fears about guns and slavery he needs to have a frank talk with Joe Biden whose remark about “dragging” blacks in chains hit the news. That’s where my fear comes from….Joe the Mouth!

          • toomuchsense

            Most Hollywood elites if hooked up to a lie detector would not be nearly as liberal as it appears to us. For what we have, is most Hollywood workers, be they actors, directors, etc., have sold their soul to be able to be part of the Hollywood crowd. If they want work, especially as they are starting out, have to play the game. Sell their souls, to the Hollywood demons, to be accepted into the system. Even after they are established in the Hollywood system, if they want to be accepted in the Hollywood Social Scene, they have to continue their personal integrity sellout. Gee, one does not have to be real smart to realize that the percentage of leftys in Hollywood is no where to be found in any other group. Why? Just use a little sense and reasoning power. P.S. It’s not the water. It’s the Hollywood system. Kiss up, suck up, to the system. Then be accepted in the system. Takes a MAN, or a TRUE LADY to stand on their own, and buck any system. There aren’t many men or ladies in Hollywood.

          • martinscot

            Glover was at a function honoring Martin Luther when it was reported he offered his take on the 2nd Amendment–seems he thinks the amendment was added to protect whites from slaves and Indians–he didn’t attend history class either

        • toomuchsense

          Danny Glover is 100% right. There is racism everywhere. Danny Glover sees it everyday, when he looks in the mirror.

      • $336547

        Too many have never read the Constitution is right, but not too many know how to read thanks to our Liberal public educational system. Also, many of the ones who can read don’t comprehend why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. They just think it is a document that was written by a bunch of old men many years ago and it isn’t relevant in today’s society.
        In other words most of them are a bunch of stupid Kool-Aid drinking sheeple. They won’t care about the Constitution until the rights it guarantees are taken away.

      • toomuchsense

        Its the public school system stupid. Not calling you stupid David. But it is the public shool systems that has failed, failed miserably, STUPID!

        • oldguy199

          Wrong -They have succeeded at dumbing down the generations. The theory–educated people can not be ruled, idiots can – this was started during the ’60’s (when US was #1 in education) The Comunist Ayers and ilk got involved with teaching in the Universities with the express idea to dumb- down the kids . Follow the woman’s movement and watch what they did to little boys–multiply that on several fronts and –walla– you have today’s teacher’s unions and their feeble mentality

          • toomuchsense

            Hi oldguy,
            How can I be wrong, when your comment reply agrees with my statement? Its the public school system, stupid. Again, not calling you stupid OldGuy. But its the public school system STUPID.

          • oldguy199

            Who is the “more stupider”” –us or them? Them for doing it or US for LETTING them do it?

          • toomuchsense

            :-) Good question oldguy.

    • toomuchsense

      Its 17%. Which means that 80% with an opinion, support gun rights. Its BS, Bull Hockey, or Big Stupid that don’t have an opinion. If someone has no opinion, only those that wish to mislead or misguide, count them. I could care less for the horses you can’t lead to water.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=629591346 Gary Jones

    I guess most of the people was paying attention when they studied and was tested on their knowledge of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    • toomuchsense

      Gee Gary, you must be older then forty-five. They haven’t taught real Civics for nearly forty years. There are exceptions in the public school systems. But key into the KEY word in the previous sentences. EXCEPTIONS

  • nightlight

    The 17% who disagree are idiots and the 18% who are not sure are confused idiots.

    • Stealth

      nightlight…. you are SO right- wish I had neighbors like you. Living here in the STINKING, STUPID, ass-backwards, most over-taxed, in debt per capita LIBERAL state of Connecticut with an IDIOT/MORON Governor & Legislature… well it ain’t easy! Throw a wife who also can be described as ‘all of the above’..and life is hell… About 80% of our population fits the 17 & 18 %!

      • Ken-Ida

        It,s called the end times my friend and I have a wife with the same mindset and shes quaker stock ( family with William Penn) and she doubts GOD or his word and we live in the crazed liberal Ontario.I got charged because I was working on a drain with my backhoeand a crazy tenant jumped up on my machine and tried to take my old 22 magnum single shot out of tube of big o and I stopped him after 6″ of wooden stock slid out the bottom,He proceeded to throw 3 punches at my head and broke my glasses & cut my nose while my feet were on the brake & clutch of this running machine..I did not have any words and did not gesture or provoke and hardly knew this insane man.I phoned the police who obey these liberal abortions and they laid an assault against this man and a charge against me because my 1951 22 is not registerd after being told 20 years ago it was grandfathered in as I am 64 and got my initial hunting liscence when I was 15 and joined two federal training (Navy sea cadets and later 3rd RCR reserves militia were I received extensive training in firearms My family is military veterns allso Nimagen–Ahrnem.I hope and pray you will take back your God fearing country before its too late.I travel Stateside every 2 weeks and afraid this will stop me as a marked individual which can easily happen to you! I had no prior record! Ken Good luck & GOD BLESS

        • Ken-Ida

          I forgot to add I have 2 black panfher aprox.80-90 lbs. Two 7 ft. siver & black wolves and hundreds of coyotes al wil kill visiously and the police took my old working rifle!!!!

        • CJMcRat

          There was a time in the distant path when we were self educated. Example, I learned that the pot on the stove could be hot when I grabbed one and burned my hand. I learned as a youth that if you picked a fight with a big kid you got your butt handed to you. This was followed by an adult pointing out that I got what I deserved and the pain was what I deserved. I miss the old days!

          • toomuchsense

            You’re talking common sense, and responsibility. You’re not going to fit in to well with most those that have been indoctrinated in the public schools and mass media. I pity them, they have an entire liftetime of misery coming their way. Then again, they could just hook up to video games, constant movies on cable, and live and relive fake experiences for what ever years they have, then die, not really having lived THEIR own experiencess. Kinda of like the WALKING DEAD.

      • jmaclean93

        I know how you feel here in New York, wanna move to Texas! Soon!

      • Mike11C

        The Constitution is more important than I am and it’s more important than my wife is. Move your ass to a state that believes in the Constitution and leave her there where she belongs. That’s what I would do.

    • Robert Gunther

      I agree they have no knowledge of what the constitution is about;
      our forefathers are turning in their graves.

    • caskinner

      I was going to say the same thing. Thank you!!

  • freedomringsforall

    yeah but why not 95%?

    Well Praise God that even some of the Pravda readers have at least some reading comprehension.!

    • oldguy199

      Do not insult Pravda, Visit their site- they seem to be more informed about what is happening than our PROPAGANDA centers who “claim” to be the MSM

  • CaptTurbo

    Communists have abused guns throughout history exterminating all who couldn’t be brain washed. They love guns as long as the useful idiots don’t have them.

  • Sue

    Interestingly there was a FEMA exercise (L-366 Planning for the needs of children in disasters) going on 14 miles away from Sandy Hook the same time and day. Please google it.

    • larryincamden

      Interesting coincidence, huh

  • 9Spoon9

    The NEA (Nat’l Ed Assoc) is wholly responsible. I stressed the significance of the 2nd in my high school history classes. My students were fully aware the 2nd Amendment WAS/IS & SHOULD FOREVER BE the Cornerstone of Liberty! Many of their parents had also missed the boat on why the Founders placed firearms of next import behind GOD, the freedom to worship as well as to speak your mind without fear of recourse.

    It is truly sad that the liberal, excuse-making fools that write…err dictate Nat’l Ed Stds and Tests don’t have a damned clue. The new light shed upon this subject has hopefully rekindled some of the patriotic spirit that brought America into being. Maybe, just maybe some of the younger students/folks have availed themselves to factual stories and accounts via the internet where it is clearly delineated as a natural right, as well as the fact that the “MILITIA” consists of all US citizens, much as the Swiss model except without the government supplied training and arms.

    GOD bless America!

    • larryincamden

      Ofcourse they have a clue, they know exactly what they are doing.

      • 9Spoon9

        I reckon you to be correct. I had a reputation of strictly enforcing disciplinary standards and for telling the truths. Many on the teaching staff took offense to my ‘rabid ways’. Oh the disdain some of them had for me and I basked in it! Their sniveling attitudes only caused me to raise more cane with their otherwise passive students. I was in the Principal’s office more times as a mentor/teacher than during my 1st-12th grade years combined (and I got my first paddling on day 1 of 1st grade!). I enjoy an honest fight when the facts themselves are clearly the winner! Kids do want to know the truths and once exposed, tend to develop a free-thinking minds and seek out the facts when something comes their way that they were unaware of or thought otherwise about. Good Day Larry!

      • toomuchsense

        Some do. Some are dumber than dirt. Have you spoken to what has recently come out of the public school system or still in.
        Try this. I mean it. Try this. Talk to current highschool public school students. Asked them what their GPA is. Only continue if they have a GPA higher than 3.0., zero in if over 3.5. Ask them simple questions that the 2.5 or lower students would have known forty or fifty years ago. You will be shocked. Not pleasantly. I work with young people weekly as a volunteer. I have checked their basic knowledge and reasoning abilites for years. It’s not good, nor pretty. But there is a common denominator. The public school system.

    • toomuchsense

      Bravo. Great piece. Wish we had more like you 9Spoon9.

    • Eddie Fudd

      Thank-you for being an AMERICAN!

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    That’s WHY they’re out to license, control, and limit that right,and the very fact that is precisely what they’ve been doing and will continue to do should be enough for us to look to another and greater authority for our RESPONSIBILITY to bear arms in defense of ourselves, our families, and neighbors (1 Timothy 5:8, etc.)

    Rights are but another bill of goods by which we have been sold down the river. For more, see blog article “Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/rights-rights-everyone-wants-their-rights/.

    • Davy Crockett

      “Rights” as in such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men. These are God given, inalienable rights granted by the duties and responsibilities God has given us in Scripture. Some examples are Gen. 1:26 were we are given dominion over the earth and all that is in it and “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1st Tim. 5:8). Providing means security, food, shelter, etc, so from these passages we see our right to self defense and to bear arms, property rights and security of property etc. Everyone of our true rights can be found in Scripture like this.

      Before God, in our vertical relationship what we call “rights” are necessary parts of duties and responsibilities He has given us. Yet before Him, we do have rights, but a different sort of rights. As sons of the living God and “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) we have the right to pension Him in prayer. We have all the covenants, birthrights, and promises we can claim as ours with the rights and privileges they include. We also have the right to lose and bind as found in:

      “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

      “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.” Matt. 18:18-19

      Yes, God reserves His right as Sovereign over all, but He still grants us these rights as Christians and as applicable, as immortal beings “created in His image”. So it is incorrect to say we do not have rights. We truly do, have rights as I have proven above and as our Founding Fathers intended. I do not indorse today’s state of our nation, but the foundation of this country was true

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        David, please tell me, how the Bill of Rights can be God-given when much of what’s contained therein is antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh’s morality as contained in His commandments, statutes, and judgments?

        • Davy Crockett

          I see nothing in the Constitution that defies God’s Laws when understood from its original purpose. They were not trying to establish a theocracy and left it to each state and person to practice and establish Christianity. They had learned from history to not follow in the foot steps of having a state religion full of imperfect men, thus every corrupting the faith, but made it very clear for this government to function it must be filled with Christian men. They only reason you take issue is because you wish to establish a theocracy. Each right in the Bill of Rights comes from the responsibilities God has given us. Tell me which ones as Christian men should we not be doing?

          • Davy Crockett

            And to clarify, I am not dodging your question, I just don’t have time to go through the thing, especially since we agree on some of the points, its just I call them rights and duties, while you only call them duties.

          • Robert

            You have to apply Yahweh’s standards to ALL documents from men, regardless if said document claims or is believed to conform to Biblical standards.

          • Davy Crockett

            I do, but where is your workable plan that is better than what they did?

          • T. Edward Price

            His workable plan is the same as mine, and should be the workable plan for ALL pronomians: Yahweh’s perfect, immutable, law, as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. ANYTHING less eventually leads back to the exact same place as here, if not worse.

          • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

            Let’s begin with the First Amendment and work from there–see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.

            By the way, there’s probably twice as much material in the written chapters as there was in the audio series.

          • Davy Crockett

            Since the Founding Fathers where not attempting establish a theocracy especially at the federal level I see no problem with the 1st amd. This aspect was left to the states where state churches were established and funded. The federal government was to have very little to do with our day to day lives. There is nor was one denomination that they could foster on the nation as a whole. To establish a state religion at the federal level would have ended our chances to begin this nation. Not once in history have we sustained harmony of the Body enough to do so. Even when Jesus walked the earth His followers clashed with the disciples of John, the Pharisees, Sadducees etc. Then later we have Gnostics, Nicolatians, those of Apollo’s, those of Paul etc. None of us have the right to force our personal convictions on fellow believers. Where in the Bible does it command that all governments we establish in this New Covenant age must be theocracy? It is not the only form of government God ordained and established in the Bible so why do you only advocate this one form?

            Do you believe in freewill? This is what the 1st Amd is based on. Show me where in the Bible it commands us to force conversion or death in the New Covenant age?

            Freedom of speech like all freedoms comes with responsibilities which is why I do support obscenity laws in accordance with the 3rd commandment and laws against pornography in accordance with the 7th commandment. And when this nation was founded they had such rules on the books

          • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

            If you read Chapter 11, you know that, with Article 6’s ban of federal test oaths, that the framers knew full well that Amendment 1 opened the door for non-Christians, such as Muslims, to rule over Christians. In fact, the Christian test ban was influenced by anti-Christ Jews for that very purpose. As a Christian, especially an alleged pronomian, you’re obligated to condemn the First Amendment as sedition against Yahweh.

            As I’ve shared with you before, but, once again, you have chosen to pay it no attention, no one’s talking about a state or national religion that’s forced upon anyone to accept.

            As has also been pointed out to you several times, all government’s are theocracies in practice whether you choose to accept it or not.

          • Davy Crockett

            Do you have any evidence showing that was the Founding Father’s intent like an actual quote or is this just your opinion? The English language is not static. Word use and meaning changes and evolves through out history. Today sadly because of the influence of the Humanist doctrine of multi-centralism, when we hear the word “religions” we think all the beliefs of the world whereas in the time of the Founders, the word “religion” meant only Protestant Christianity, most maybe the Catholic church, which most of them viewed as pagan and superstitious.

            We are debating forms of government so in this discussion and in reality not all governments are theocracies. You can’t change word meanings to suit your doctrine. We all know law is someone’s morality, but that is not what we are debating here. Ted you cannot legislate morality, if the people won’t elect Christian leaders, it won’t matter how many “tests” are given if the person only lies or is allowed to get by. It is the job of the people to make sure the men they elect are Christians or they will suffer for it if they don’t. So it is a mute point. Besides to begin with the states did have requirements for their state officials to be Christians.

            A state religion is exactly what you will get with your form of government whether you want to face that or not. Just as happened under the Pharisees, Catholics, Muslims etc.

          • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

            If you would take the time to read both Chapter 9 and 11 of “Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” you would already know that I provide primary source documentation for what I’ve written above.

            To change law from Yahweh’s law is, practically speaking, to change gods–in the case of the Constitution–to the god WE THE PEOPLE. I address this in Chapter 3 of “BL vs. USC.” Therefore, all governments are theocracies.

            On one hand, you declare all law is someone’s morality (or immorality as the case may be) and then turn around int he very next sentence and declare that morality cannot be legislated. This is double-mindedness to the extreme. All law is legislated morality or immorality–this is inescapable–and, therefore, all governments are not only theocratic but theocentric. This is true for government of, by, and for Yahweh based upon His immutable laws and it is likewise true for government of, by, and for the people, based upon their capricious laws.

          • T. Edward Price

            Davy: “Do you believe in freewill? This is what the 1st Amd is based on. Show me where in the Bible it commands us to force conversion or death in the New Covenant age?

            Please cite ONE instance where Mr. Weiland ever claims a Biblical “command” instructing forced conversion or death. If your are implying that is Mr. Weiland’s position, you might want to conduct a heart check, lest you be guilty of the Ninth Commandment.

            You seem to place faith in the framers motives for the First Amendment. You believe that the First Amendment restricts government ONLY at the federal level, allowing the states to establish whatever theocratic system they so desired. You also continually champion a return to original intent. Please note the “doctrine of selective incorporation”, commonly referred to as the “incorporation doctrine”. This doctrine uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to force the application of the Bill of Rights upon the states. And if you were to argue the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment, and claim that returning to the original CON
            would remove the theory and application of the “incorporation doctrine”, remember that the Fourteenth Amendment was made possible by the amendable nature of the original CON itself. This removes ANY possibility that the framers intended to allow the states to set up Christian based governments. Their chicanery is obvious, their motives crystal clear. The CON is based, philosophically, on the precepts of the Age of Enlightenment, not the Bible.

          • Davy Crockett

            I raised those questions because they are the reason we have and need the 1st amd and interestingly enough Ted would not answer any of them, why is that? If he has no problem with these concepts why would he not quickly answer them and move on to his points?

            And why not? They are my Christian brethren whom I am to trust and their labor, words and fruit have proven nothing to the contrary. You contradict yourself as you offer no proof of their ill intent. It is not their fault, that preceding generations including you, Ted, and I have failed to keep things working right. Nothing is above the corruption of man in this world, including the use of the Bible as can be seen in the Catholic church, Mormon church etc. They were not arrogant men, and knew there was things left to work on so they left the Constitution so that others could work to perfect it, such as dealing with the slave issue. Their original intent was that the Bill of Rights restrict only the federal government, as stated in the Constitution, which is how they conducted themselves. Each generation must answer for their own sins. Stand up as Paul says and “act as men” instead of seeking to take later generation’s sins and placing them on others.

          • T. Edward Price

            There is absolutely no contradiction in my comments. Ted has indeed addressed your questions, in depth, in his writings, all easily obtained online, most for free. It speaks volumes for you to say that we NEED the First Amendment, because Yahweh’s law is insufficient. You fail to see that the framers had no intention of setting up a Godly based system of governance. Had they intended to do so, they would have left a trail of evidence. The architects of the Constitution, and of the Declaration that preceded it, were heavily influenced by the Age of Enlightenment that swept the European continent in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. Humanism was the religion of favor and influence of the day. Jefferson was a blatant anti-Christ, and the entire concept of “natural rights” was an attempt to usurp the Divine perfect order of Yahweh.

            It is glaringly obvious, that our opinions on the matter oppose one another. That is completely acceptable. But you argue from the weaker position, when you refuse to consider your adversary’s points, and study them to either disprove, or validate them. Again, you need to consider the motives of your heart in this matter. To have a countering opinion is perfectly fine, but it would seem that your true motivation is not to challenge ideas, but instead to be a thorn in Ted’s side, due to a personal disagreement in the reading and application of Biblical law.

          • Davy Crockett

            Our debate is here on this site in the comments section following the article. I nor most people have the time to wade through Ted’s myraids of writings. If his doctrine is so convoluted that he cannot distill it into a post then he has lost sight of the truths he is trying to convey. The Bible is a very consise, concentrated book, wasting not a book, chapter or word. This is our example to follow, especially in this format. That being said he has not answered all my questions.

            We do need to prevent the tyranny of a national state religion that would form under Ted’s government, just as it did in every other country that had a national state religion. To say Jefferson is anti-Christ shows you have not studied his whole life, but chose to only focus on his straying in France. Every man stumbles or falls in life. “Natural rights” come from nature’s God, who is our God, Creator and Father. This is how they used those words back in the 1700’s. English is not a static language and what a word means and how it is used changes over time. You cannot correctly understand history if you apply 21st century English on 1700’s men. You act as if the Age of Enlightenment was the only movement at that time. Have you heard or read about the great revivals that led up and sparked our Revolution like the Great Awakening?

            Lets step back. I do not question that God’s Law is perfect, the Bible is very clear on that. What we are debating is application particularly about governance. So, do you think God’s Law addresses every situation we face? Can we legislate? Is there a need to?

          • T. Edward Price

            David: ” If his [Ted Weiland’s] doctrine is so convoluted that he cannot distill it into a post then he has lost sight of the truths he is trying to convey.”

            By what standard do you judge his “doctrine” convoluted? If it is according to your own heart’s desire, be honest and say so. If, on the other hand, you judge it by Yahweh’s standard, then please point out Biblically where he is in error, or “convoluted”. He has been both articulate AND succinct in his his responses. And, he appears to have answered ALL genuine questions you have made public. It seems your mission to follow him from site to site, seeking to publicly challenge him, due to some personal vendetta.

            David: “We do need to prevent the tyranny of a national state religion that would form under Ted’s government, just as it did in every other country that had a national state religion.

            What is “Ted’s government”? If you mean a theonomy, theocratically administered, that would be Yahweh’s government, not Ted’s. We are already living, currently, under the oppressive “tyranny of a national state religion”, worshipping the false deity, WE THE PEOPLE.

            David: “To say Jefferson is anti-Christ shows you have not studied his whole life, but chose to only focus on his straying in France.

            You again show your absence of linear logic. You have completely insufficient data to determine what I have, or have not, studied. To DENY that Thomas Jefferson was an anti-Christ, shows that you do not take seriously his OWN words, including his blasphemous butchering of Scripture, and his correspondence with John Adams in his last days. He DENIED the deity of Christ his entire life, which, by definition, encompasses much more than just a little “straying in FRANCE”.

            David: “‘Natural rights’ come from nature’s God, who is our God, Creator and Father.”

            “Natural rights” are Humanistic and antithetical to Biblical law. There was a great deal of discussion among the early Church Fathers concerning “natural law”, which emanates from man’s heart, versus God’s law, which emanates from Yahweh’s heart. The two are completely incompatible, though there were many in the early church period who tried to integrate the two into one.

            David: “This is how they used those words back in the 1700’s. English is not a static language and what a word means and how it is used changes over time. You cannot correctly understand history if you apply 21st century English on 1700’s men.

            You’re quite presumptive concerning my understanding of evolutionary, historical, and sociolinguistics. I am quite aware of the extant understanding of “natural law”, not only in the context of the eighteenth century English language, but of Western and Christian culture historically. Since I do “correctly understand history”, I remain adamant that we have been deceived regarding “natural law”, “natural rights”, and their anti-Christian “nature”. Those who equate the Masonic “nature’s God” with Yahweh of the Bible are described perfectly in Isaiah 5:20 –“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

            David: ” You act as if the Age of Enlightenment was the only movement at that time. Have you heard or read about the great revivals that led up and sparked our Revolution like the Great Awakening?”

            I am indeed aware of the period. Mentioning, as reference, the Age of Enlightenment, in no way indicates my blindness to other “movements” of the era. However, you show no evidence of understanding the influence of the Enlightenment on most of the framers. If I am wrong on that, please show me. But the same spiritual forces that surreptitiously crafted our Declaration and Constitution, were in full force during the French Revolution. Deny it if you wish, but the facts are irrefutable.

            David: “So, do you think God’s Law addresses every situation we face? Can we legislate? Is there a need to?”

            Yes. To think otherwise, would be to declare Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law, insufficient. Therefore, Yahweh Himself would be insufficient.

            No, and no! Isaiah 33:22 –“For the Lord is our judge, The Lord is our lawgiver, The Lord is our king; He will save us—”

            You are perfectly entitled to your views, as am I. We can disagree vehemently, and still attempt to engage in intelligent discourse. However, if your intent is solely to insult and attempt to smear Mr. Weiland, due to a matter of Yahweh’s law, it will most certainly expose your heart. Consider this prayerfully, and act accordingly. The decision is yours.

          • Davy Crockett

            I am responding to the point I feel is most important and will get to the rest as I have time.

            How does God’s Law deal with someone who walks their dog, he poops on the public side walk and then his owner does not clean it up? Please show me scripture for this. Or do we need to use Biblical principles and legislate rules to deal with this matter?

          • T. Edward Price

            Dog poop? Really? No, I mean, REALLY. This is the point you “feel is most important…”, REALLY REALLY?

            Proverbs 26:4 — “Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
            Or you will also be like him.”

          • Davy Crockett

            You are missing the point. How do we deal with this type of situation under this form of government you purpose?

      • T. Edward Price

        Davy, rights, as you describe them, are not mandatory. The very nature of a “right” indicates that one can choose whether or not to exercise said right. Responsibilities offer no such choice. Man’s horizontal relationship with his fellow man does not permit one to abrogate his responsibility to protect his family. There is absolutely no “God given right” to protection. There is NO CHOICE in the matter. It’s a “God MANDATED responsibility to obey
        1 Timothy 5:8, Luke 22:36, etc. Responsibilities trump “rights” every time.

        • Davy Crockett

          Read over what I said again. Your confusion is the very reason I spoke of the two very different relationships, the ones we have with men and the one we have with God. What God gives us as responsibilities we are to do period which is why I used 1st Tim. 5:8. Then in our horizontal relationships between men and with our governments, these responsibilities grant us our rights in order that we may by God’s will carry out his orders among men. Among Christians this should be a given, which why the Founding Father’s thoughts and intentions confuse liberal thought so much. But we live in a world full of unbelievers, so to help them understand and to protect our duties, we have rights among men. This does not give us any options about whether we carry them out or not, God have given us our orders, we are “men under authority” (Mt. 5:9) and must carry them out. None of the rights are even optional as the Founders viewed it. Every able bodied man was to be armed, everyone is responsible to speak and assemble to protect freedom. Liberty not practiced disappears.

          • T. Edward Price

            With all due respect, there is absolutely no confusion on my part. The two different relationships matter not in the least. Rights and responsibilities are in no way synonymous with one another.

            Davy: “But we live in a world full of unbelievers, so to help them understand and to protect our duties, we have rights among men. This does not give us any options about whether we carry them out or not…”

            Herein lies the confusion on your part. Your comment contradicts itself. Rights, by their very definition, ALWAYS imply options. One can always choose whether or not to exercise rights. Responsibilities, or duties if you prefer, on the other hand, NEVER contain the option NOT to exercise. Therefore, man’s horizontal relationship with man NEVER includes the option to NOT protect one’s family. That is a RESPONSIBILITY, not a “right”. Although I have a great amount of respect for the Amish, and conduct business with them when possible, this is one of their chief Biblical shortcomings. They exercise their “right” to not protect themselves and families, eschewing in the process the very essence of 1 Timothy 5″8 “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

            I know Amish who have impressive arsenals, including multiple AR15’s with top notch furniture, but will never use them in defense. They are actually expecting me, as well as others so inclined, to protect them, using the arsenal that they can not use.

            Davy: ““Rights” as in such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men.”

            Please point out just ONE “right” enumerated in the Bill of Rights that has ANY Biblical foundation. The very first one tells us ALL we need to know.

            First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            First Commandment: Exodus 20:1-3– “Then God spoke all these words, saying,“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.“You shall have no other gods before Me.”

            I see absolutely NO evidence of compatibility between the two. Worship the CON if you so desire, “but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh.”

          • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland


        • Robert


  • Jerry

    We have the Boston Tea Party in the making.
    Taxation without representation is what is taking place
    Our representatives are more interested in personal interests than the public.
    This includes Congress and their pet projects AND the President with his buddy boys!

    • Chuck

      Is that why 3,000,000 Republicans did NOT vote , assuring Obama’s reelection?

      • carrieanne

        I’m a Republican and assure you that I voted in the last election. Wish all Republicans would have gone to the polls and voted. We could have avoided all the government interference in our lives.

        • Tells it like it is

          I really don’t think the votes were counted properly when 140% of the registered voters in one precinct vote something is wrong and what really gripes My ass is that bohner and the RINOs refuse to do anything about it. Every republican that I know voted I don’t know if thier votes were counted but they did vote. Who was it that said It is not the person who vote that deter,ines an election, It is the person who counts the votes that says who wins.

      • larryincamden

        Are we sure that they really did not vote?

    • LawAbidingCitizen

      Jerry.. Correct except, change to “Taxation with Representation”..

  • http://www.facebook.com/eugene.lubben Eugene Lubben

    My gun is protection against ODUMBA and his communist thugs ,,,,,,,

    • oldguy199

      You will need more than a “gun” You must become a well trained “weapons system”

  • Stealth

    I’d be willing to bet that the % is even higher than Rasmussen says…

  • chuck

    In Delaware, when a crime is committed with a gun the first charge to be pled out is the gun charge. It is a mandatory 30 yr sentence but the prosecutors want a high conviction rate so they plead it out. They would rather have the money for a fine than to put someone in prison.That’s how we have people with 5 or more DUI’s. Its about money.

    • Mitchina

      If the prisons weren’t virtually a club-med, maybe crime would be less. The prospects of going to prison anymore is a roof & bed, 3 squares… a work out yard / room, cable TV, contraban markets… where are the chain gangs? THAT would certainly reduce crime and the State’s cost in holding those low lifes.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001236855038 Donnie Hill

        Not to mention the death sentence for killing another human.

  • cherokee_warrior

    Just listened to the ‘swearing in’ of Biden and heard him repeat the words ” , , , , to defend …against all enemies, foreign or domestic….”
    Does that mean that he will speak out agains Obama, who continually avoids acting under our Constitution, for Obama, from this Conservatives view point, is a domestic terrorist, or worse, with the way that he continually attacks the Constitituion.
    When Obama takes the oath, later today, he will speak those same words, and will, so it has been said, close his oath with these words ” So help me God”. Will he honor the oath?

    • carrieanne

      We need good defense against Joe Biden. He sure isn’t a great example of Catholicism—approving abortion, for one thing. And then, there is his big mouth that spouts policies from the left.

  • Victor


  • Bob

    You think this sick bunch in D.C. don’t know this? That’s why the constant attempt at grabbing guns, because they KNOW the final arbiter of what goes on in this country resides with those citizens who own guns. They don’t like not having complete control! Remember, WITH a gun, you are a citizen. Without, you are a slave.

  • barto

    Has the other 35% ever read and understood the CONSTITUTION? I urge everyone to obtain a copy of the Constitution AND to share it with those who know not what is in it AND how it protects us from tyranny!

  • Rebecca Koomans

    I can solidly agree that – having a Presidential system which works the way USA has shown to be, – since the constitution gives the right to bear arms for such powers as a balance to the people…. then the founders KNEW that the Constitution was going to be challenged one day by a despotic fraud posing as a President (elected unwittingly by the people or rigged votes or whatever) of the USA. They then FELT that there was a soft GREY area of their constitutional protection, which needed the ever-present watchdog on guard against such an event. But a watchdog is useless without teeth and unable to BARK, and take the attacker out. We can see that scenario unfolding all the way across the South Pacific! – Talk is useless unless the defenders of the real constitution are prepared to act on it, against a cunningly placed “sleeper” agent, working for whomever we don’t know yet… but shows his contempt for the Laws and Congress and Senate…. And that in itself begs the question: Are your elected Representatives and Senators all patriotic Americans, or are some “sleeper” agents of some outside enemy influence? – CHALLENGE THEM! – Call on them TO DECLARE THEIR TRUE ALLEGIANCES on paper to you, the CITIZENS, and set in motion an IMPEACHMENT, against what is shown to be a FRAUD leading the country to HELL, having breached the Citizen requirements of the Election laws.

    • Rebecca Koomans

      Copy this if you think it is the best way to let people KNOW how to act against the fraud, and paste it on every site, virtual and concrete, imaginable… If the MEDIA won’t support you the people, then by God’s definition (REV) – THEY ARE truly AGAINST YOU, THE PEOPLE, AND THE USA! – And then it becomes a WAR, and the only way to win the war is to take control of the media by force, to begin the education of awareness, that the rest of the people need to know.

      • Mitchina

        Rebecca, that is the element that is missing. The realization that in fact the enemy has surrounded us: The media, The Congress, The POTUS, Organization spreading vile information and support to those enemies. When will 100% of conservatives realize this and fight back? When will more hispanics and blacks see they are STILL the slaves – and that they are truly conservatives? For the love of God, when?

      • Worrywart

        What is our plan to stop this? Tried getting a response from the RNC lately? You can’t. Not even our own party will listen to its own constituents.

  • jb80538

    If that is the case, how can so many say we should ban semi auto rifles that look intimidating?

    • Mitchina

      Between the morons and the Communists…. “hunting” rifles are also semi-automatic. Morons don’t know it – Communists are FULLY aware of it. The hunting claim by the stupid left just flew over the cuckoo’s nest as their bullcrap excuse (reason).

  • laker1

    You have to be brain dead or on drugs to not see the tyranny and or oppression we are under coming from DC.

  • Bill

    Our President is only looking out after our safety by issuing orders to effectively disarm lawabiding citizens, however, it seems to be OK to leave the criminal element alone. Gun control did not work in Australia or England. It does not work in New York, Chicago, or DC

    • carrianne

      It doesn’t even work in my small city. There are gangs roaming at nights and murders taking place also. Guns and knives don’t kill, people do.

  • sovereigntyofone

    As I sit here looking at the bullet hole in the wall of my house caused by some “gang bangers ” that thought it would be a good time to drive by and terrorize people. I have to reflect upon Obama’s latest attack on the 2nd Amendment. He want’s my guns, but yet hasn’t said a word about attacking the ” gang ” problem infested in almost every town and city in this nation. What happens if they come back, but this time decide to ” invade my house ” with AK-47’s or worse that they obtain from across the border. What am I to use against them? Harsh words. Even with a hand gun with a maximum capacity of 15 rounds in the magazine is no match for an AK-47 in the hands of a gang member. With ristriction on magazine size of hand guns down to 10 rounds lessens my survival rate even more.
    Let’s say that I have to shoot one of them, and I do survive, it will be more than likely that I will be charged with a felony, not because it was self defense, but because the gun I used to defend myself had a magazine size of 15 rounds. Who’s the criminal in this case?




    • larryincamden

      You cant serve Donuts at schools our “first lady” says so.

  • JohnM

    65% know what the the worst tyrants in history have done to their people after they were disarmed. The other 35% don’t even have a clue.

  • pysco

    2 out of 3 against gun control, now the question is whether these will stand against these oppressive executive decisions made by this Administration against the 2nd Amendment. Napolitaino has said all gun owners are terriorists. The President and her, are attempting to villianize all gun owners, in preparation of confiscation.

  • nina

    TRhey will brainwash our Sons and Daughters in the indoctrination Prison camps (Schools) to never want to even look at a gun let alone ever own one !!! Time to Get your children out of these Prison Camps of lies and deceit.

  • spyderdalton


    Tyranny is here folks. Our press and elections have been stolen by fraud and not one investigation. The entire congress is complicit in treason… The 2nd amendment is the last fight on the american homeland front against communism and one world global order…

  • Buck

    Our legislature MUST do something to reinforce the protection of this right and the bill of rights as a whole because the progressive propagandists and the build up of the massive progressive cities will soon change that 65% to 45% and we will truly be screwed of ALL rights , including this one . We need a reaffirmation from the entire government body to maintain the constitution and bill of rights NOW because they and the Obama administration are already running rough shod over it . Once it is lost , we will NEVER experience the taste of freedom again , and especially not our descendents . THAT is , after all , their entire goal . Why am I hearing nothing about IMPEACHMENT . We do NOT want to IMPEACH a black president , we HAVE to IMPEACH a communist fraud in the White House , Why is EVERYONE afraid to mention the evil we fought a cold war for over fifty years , that of COMMUNISM . His grandparents were communists , his father was a communist , his mentor was a communist , his stepfather was a muslim , just communism AND fascism protected under the umbrella of a religion . He IS a communist , an evil to the very idea of AMERICA . Are the majority of Americans REALLY that IGNORANT ? as even the Russian news service stated ?

  • Bill Weston

    In the late 40s, Hank Williams Sr. wrote and performed a song titled “I Saw The Light”. I wonder if Mr. Rassmussen has finally heard it. Furthermore, I wonder how many americans need to hear it.

  • LK

    Rasmussen Reports: 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny.
    The other 35% ARE political social problems? The Mind Control or Thought Reform model is loading the language,manipulation. (Terrorist): This word was mostly hatched by President George W. Bush. It is/was a code word to begin the final demolition of the rule of law in the United States. This code word has come to identify any and all who disagree with the systemic destruction of law and order. They are dubbed dissidents and are subject to arrest and prosecution on frivolous charges or no charges. Bush never knew what he was saying when he spouted the word “terrorist” (which he couldn’t pronounce). He never knew that the word “terrorist” was a control word created to start a final war on the Americans and personal liberty. Anyone say Globalism !

  • Idadho

    Why are Americans still searching for answers to the Newtown shooting? The answer is simple. Lanza was mentally ill. His mother was trying to get him committed to a psychiatric hospital. Lanza thought this was because she wanted to get back to teaching the little ones at Sandy Hook School. He thought she loved these kids more than she loved him. He took out his rage on, first, his mother, then he stole her guns and continued to take out his rage against the little children who he thought had stolen his mother’s love.

    This was not random violence done by a deranged killer. It was targeted violence by a deranged killer for a deranged reason.

    There, you have the answer. It was not about guns. It was about mental illness and anger.

  • Harvey_Steele

    In Pasadena, Taxifornina, the citizens wore their holstered pistols in public to message the gang bangers. an anchor babie D (citizenship?) in sacredememto passed a law thru the Taliban legislators so that you cannot do this as we must become mexico; the explanation for the law? No one ‘needs’ a pistola to order a HB.
    and i say, no one ‘needs’ clean underwear to order a HB.
    the citizens now carry rifles. they will stop that also.

The latest from ClashDaily.com