At the link you will find a massive page of documented cases of defensive gun use . If you scroll down to the bottom you will find the link to Andrew’s homepage which is a treasure trove of links to all manner of subjects of interest to those of us who oppose gun control , big government and statism. Poke around and you are sure to find loads of information you can use for blogging purposes , to prove an argument or just for self-education . Bookmark it and use it for future reference . You’ll be glad you did .
Below is just a small sampling of what is available from Andrew’s page . On the site all of the below listed topics are hot-linked and will provide you with hours of reading and research . I’e removed the links so as not o steal Mr Dart’s thunder . Go there and see for yourself . He has put an incredible amount of work into his site and it reads like an encyclopedia of statist references for the liberty-loving individual .
” Timely topics
Gun control and disingenuous arguments for gun control
Zero Tolerance insanity in public schools
Major Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood shooting
The Food Police
Postage Rates and Saturday deliveries
Welfare fraud, food stamps, and “disability” payments
The Proposed National ID Card
Obama’s drones and the secret kill list
Lies about the Benghazi terrorist attack
Cases in which guns saved lives
Gun control failures
Media bias related to firearms
Threats to the Constitution
The United States has plenty of oil
President Obama manipulates the news media … but they don’t care.
The above is just a partial list of topics , there is plenty more to see and reference .
Below is a letter from Mr Dart to a fellow blogger in which he sets for his motivations .
Dear Mr. Cunningham,
” Thank you for your message and the positive feedback about my web site. Your comments are greatly appreciated, and because the whole operation is free of advertising, compliments from readers are my greatest reward.
Once in a while I may also get a message from someone who disagrees with*everything* I’ve said, and although that is informative, there is just no way to respond to someone like that.
You are correct in your assessment that I’m preaching to the choir, by and large, and most of my web site’s visitors are just looking for confirmation or reinforcement of their opinions. By searching for my own name on the internet, I have also discovered that some groups on the far left point to me as an example of a right-wing fool. That’s flattering.
In maintaining my web site, one of my goals is to counteract selective news reporting and to keep important events from disappearing down the media memory hole. For example, the governor of North Carolina recently suggested that the 2012 elections should be suspended. Naturally she kicked up a cloud of opposition, and the story soon faded from the headlines (in the few news outlets that mentioned it at all), but we must never forget that the idea came up, and it was a Democrat who brought it up.
My web site serves only to sound the alarm. The solutions to our country’s problems, in my opinion, would be too “extreme” for our current crop of politicians to implement, as they would have to include such things as a complete turnover in Congress (term limits) and having the military patrol and enforce our border with Mexico (rather than living confortably in Japan or Germany).
Deeper than that, the people of our country are hopelessly divided into two groups: The producers and the sponges. A huge fraction of the population is living on government checks, and there’s no way they will ever vote to cut themselves off. To put it another way, as long as the sponges are allowed to vote, the ratio of sponges to producers will increase — and yet the ratio is already too high to suddenly prohibit them from voting, even if the Constitution would allow such a change. (The Constitution does not authorize direct payments to individuals, as far as I can tell, but nobody cares about that.)
The second deepest root is that both political parties constantly work to expand the government and, no matter which party is in power, no federal agencies are ever disbanded and dissolved. Several major government operations have run out of things to do, yet they soak up billions of dollars every year. Two examples are NASA and the EPA. A few years ago I tried to assemble a list of all the federal departments, bureaus, institutes, commissions, and so on, and it soon became apparent that there’s no way for one person to find them all. You can see my list at
Congratulations on helping to get Chris Gibson into the House of Representatives. A quick Google search showed me his district. Incidentally, Albany, NY, is the farthest I’ve ever been away from home. (My parents lived in New York until the 1940′s, on a farm outside of Hamilton. Fortunately they moved to Texas before I was born. The farm life is wonderful, I’m sure, but I don’t like snow.)
You are quite correct: Sleepwalking is a dangerous thing.
Have a great day!
Andrew K. Dart
A thorough , detailed and link-filled post on why nullification is not only feasible but our right . Very much worth your time .
” Nullification deniers such as Matthew Spalding of Heritage Foundation, Jarrett Stepman of Human Events, law professor Randy Barnett, David Barton of Wallbuilders, and history professor Allen C. Guelzo, say that nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government is unlawful and impossible. They make the demonstrably false assertions that:
- States don’t have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because our Constitution doesn’t say they can do it;
- Nullification is literally impossible;
- The supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says; and
- James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, opposed nullification.
Their assertions contradict our Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, our federal Constitution, and what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton really said.
What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?
The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important – you will see why!:
- The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional – usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
- The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey: the act mustorder them to do something or not do something.
What is “Interposition” and What is “Nullification”? “
Read The Whole Thing
Colorado: Sheriffs’ Group Opposes New Gun-Control Laws
” Cam Edwards talks to the First Vice President of the group County Sheriffs of Colorado, Sheriff James Casias from Las Animas County, CO about this article: http://trinidad-times.com/sheriffs-group-opposes-new-guncontrol-laws-p4692-1.htm - NRA News – January 29, 2013 -http://www.NRANews.com ”