Back in 1984 the group Twisted Sister had a smash hit titled "We're Not Gonna Take It."  It was a teen rebellion song against parents that nearly all young teens embraced.  So here I am, a middle aged man, driving home from work listening to the oldies station last night....and this song graced the speakers of my car.  At first nostalgia took over me, a time when I was young and causing trouble.  My smile in remembering the past soon faded and I realized this song still has meaning to this older and much wiser gentleman.

While this is not the actual year of 1984, in many ways it is the year 1984 of George Orwell's novel.  A police state has enveloped this nation.  We have a duopoly that is controlling our nation for our own protection of course.   Since the year 1984 our federal government has grown and individual rights has decreased.   Looking back now at how life is different...saddens me.   In many ways we have so much more security and there is less stress, but at a cost.  

Anyway, today I had to watch the old video...of Dee Snyder singing the anthem that made the group famous.  I watched the extended version where the father spouts his tirade at the young boy.....and I realized that this video and song has so many correlations to life today..and reflects how I think as a libertarian.   Here are the lyrics.

Oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we've Got The Right To Choose And
there Ain't No Way We'll Lose It
this Is Our Life, This Is Our Song
we'll Fight The Powers That Be Just
don't Pick Our Destiny 'cause
you Don't Know Us, You Don't Belong

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh You're So Condescending
your Gall Is Never Ending
we Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You
your Life Is Trite And Jaded
boring And Confiscated
if That's Your Best, Your Best Won't Do

oh.....................
oh.....................
we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
no Way!

oh.....................
oh.....................
we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

we're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we're Not Gonna Take It, No!
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

just You Try And Make Us
we're Not Gonna Take It
come On
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
you're All Worthless And Weak
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
now Drop And Give Me Twenty
we're Not Gonna Take It
oh Crinch Pin
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh You And Your Uniform
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

The father reminds me of current day liberals and conservatives of big government.  Compliance is the only option.....individuality is not an option, freedom is not an option.  You need to act a certain way or you will be punished.   What is sad is that your average American is like the brother who is giggling as the father berates the child for being an individual with his own thoughts.

We are not going to take it any longer.  Already we have the highest rate of Americans renouncing their citizenship.

http://jamesthe.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/17/11247251-record-number-of-americans-renounce-citizenship?last=1334677805&threadId=3396613&sp=0&pc=25#last_2

People are tired of this police state.....sexual assaults by our government....assassinations, imprisonment without trial...lack of choice in our personal lives.  If you speak out against the welfare or warfare state...you are talked down to as not caring or even worse...unpatriotic.   This verse in the song explains it quite well on how libertarians and those who want choice think

oh You're So Condescending
your Gall Is Never Ending
we Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You
your Life Is Trite And Jaded
boring And Confiscated
if That's Your Best, Your Best Won't Do

I am tired of being talked down to because I want freedom in my life....because I want to make choices for myself and to take responsibility of my own body.  I am tired of liberals taking the moral high ground on what I should do with my labor...I am tired of conservatives taking the moral high ground on what I should do with my personal life.

I dont want nothin', not a thing from you.

and We're not going to take it....ANYMORE

“It is obscene for those claiming to protect life, liberty, and property to obtain their revenue by violating life, liberty, and property. There are plenty of ways to obtain revenue without force: insurance, user fees, advertising, lotteries, and donations are already used by many local and state governments for a good portion of their revenue. Let them be true public servants and live within the means that these sources provide. People might even pay more voluntarily once they're no longer forced to turn over 1/3 to 1/2 of their wealth to governments.

“Ultimately, it is about the type of society we want to have. We can accomplish a lot voluntarily when we mutually respect each other's lives and property. It begins by respecting the right of people to keep the fruits of their labor. A good start would be the abolition of the personal income tax, which only adds insult to the injury of theft by invading every part of the taxpayer's privacy as well as making the second week of April a misery instead of a time to enjoy the early spring.”

More common sense on healthcare from the good Doctor.

Freedom must be embraced and not disregarded.

The Ron Paul phenomenon is perhaps the most interesting story to come out of the 2012 election to date, simply because he breaks all the stereotypes of a successful candidate or movement. Ron Paul is not handsome (like Mitt Romney). He’s not exciting (like Sarah Palin). He’s not charismatic (like a Reagan or JFK). He’s not super articulate (like Obama). And he’s sure not young. If I were to run for President in 2030, I would still be younger than Ron Paul is today.

So what’s the attraction? Why are so many Americans passionate fans of Ron Paul? And why in particular do so many young people who tune out of politics, tune in for Ron Paul?

Let me start with his #1 attribute. Ron Paul is RELENTLESS. He just never gives up. It has been said that if you keep your suits long enough, they’ll eventually come back in style. Ron Paul’s brand of Libertarianism and freedom is back in style – because of his dedication, persistence and tenacity.

The foundation of relentlessness is unshakable faith. Tim Tebow’s NFL season full of miracles proves the value of intense faith. Well, Ron Paul has that kind of intense faith in the old fashioned values of God, country, freedom, personal responsibility, and capitalism. And Paul’s enthusiasm and faith is genuine, not fake or manufactured. Voters can see that and they like it.

Secondly, while Ron Paul is not your traditional politician, and is painted by the media as extreme, the voters are starting to realize that it is the traditional status quo politicians that led us right into this economic Armageddon. Those “traditional” views about everything – debt, taxes, spending, entitlements, Social Security, bailouts for billionaire bankers, the Fed, wars – led to the insolvency and bankruptcy of this great country. Perhaps it’s time to think "out of the box."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/04/understanding-ron-paul-phenomenon/#content#ixzz1lWE6yhJ8

I have been going over some of the works of Thomas Jefferson.   How he ended up in politics and the mood of the colonists prior to the Revolutionary War.  Many had felt "enslaved."  That was a word that was used often.  Tyranny was another word.  Lets move forward about 240 years.

We have what many people call a central government that is "oppressive."  Enslavement and tyranny are words that are being used again.   We have the Patriot Act, NDAA....SOPA,PIPA or at least mention of them.  We have endless war, occupation of 130 countries and 900 bases around the world.  Assassinations of American citizens without due process.

We have OWS, Tea Party, abuses by the police in "breaking up" these gatherings.  We have government deciding what we can eat, how we can act and feel..We are taxed for numerous things, need approval to do most anything...i.e. licences, permits.  We have a healthcare system that forces us to purchase a good from a private organization.  We have a central bank in which our economy is artificially altered and controlled by a select people.  We have a propaganda system...i.e. the media owned by 5 corporations..controlling all of our information...

Anyway, I came across this quote. I have seen it before, but its been a while.  I think it is quite relevent, and I think people really need to take notice as to what is going on...and question what they believe in.  Do you trust others more than yourself? And if you do not...then why would you want to give the power over you to these people?  Think about how our politicians say one thing, and then do another, and continue what they said they were against.  Think hard how the federal government is getting larger and more powerful and we are losing more and more rights.

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”

— Thomas Jefferson

South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the darling of the Tea Party wing nuts of the GOP, is urging Republican candidates to listen to Ron Paul. “One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul,” DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

Why the sudden enthusiasm of Republican leaders for Ron Paul? Credit his surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire, where 47 percent of primary voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for him.

No other Republican candidate has come nearly as close to winning over young voters – and the GOP desperately needs young voters. The median age of registered Republicans is rising faster than the median age of America.

The Republican right thinks Paul’s views on the economy are responsible for this fire among the young. Yesterday evening, on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program, I squared off with Larry and the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore. Both are convinced young people are attracted by Paul’s strict adherence to the views of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and Paul’s desire to move America back to the gold standard.

Baloney. The young are flocking to Ron Paul because he wants to slice military spending, bring our troops home, stop government from spying on American citizens, and legalize pot.

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s argument that freedom breeds immorality ignores the history of America when it was most free. We are now at our least free, and at our most immoral, by any measure of social pathology. We have proven for decades on end that government can deliver neither prosperity nor salvation – no matter who runs it.

We don’t need 40,000 more laws each year to live free. The Constitution is just a skinny pamphlet; the Ten Commandments fit on a recipe card. Even a society of atheists would live peaceably together if they did not lie, covet, steal, kill, disrespect parents, commit adultery, or attempt to play God.

Some people think we should take those Ten Commandments down from our government buildings. Not me. I think we ought to take down the government buildings.

Thanks to our media and many government officials, however, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws, more debt, and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual responsibility.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about violence? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference unless they use force or fraud against others. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

QUOTEBOX: Ron Paul, in his own words

* On the U.S. Patriot Act: ``I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, because it undermines our liberty ... Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security.

* On siding with Israel against Iran: ``Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel? So I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves.''

* On foreign aid: ``I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn't do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country, and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries.''

* On the drug war: ``I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure ... Why don't we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol?''

* On following the golden rule in foreign policy: ``I think we should practice a policy of good will to other people. What about saying that we don't do anything to any other country that we don't have them do to us?''

* On leaving the Taliban alone in Afghanistan: ``Taliban doesn't mean they want to come here and kill us. The Taliban means they want to kill us over there, because all they want to do is get people who occupy their country out of their country, just like we would if anybody tried to occupy us.''

* On gay marriage: ``I think the government should just be out of it, I think it should be done by the Church or private contract and we shouldn't have this argument, who's married and who isn't married. I have my standards but I shouldn't have to impose my standards on others, others have standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.''

* On the 9/11 attacks: ``Our policies definitely had an influence. And you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country ... So I'm saying policies have an effect. But that's a far cry from blaming America.''

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Alberts+Paul+candidacy+thrives+libertarian+unconventional+views/5775051/story.html#ixzz1f2cchNdi

Blah, blah, blah, Ron Paul is awesome.

As college students, we’ve all heard them –– Ron Paul supporters who rant and rave about how their libertarian savior is going to bring freedom back to the country, legalize pot and pull us out of Afghanistan. Allow my prickly beard to burst the idealistic bubble for you all: Ron Paul could never be president. And considering the circumstances, that’s probably the biggest compliment anyone could give him.

What Americans claim to crave from their politicians is honesty. We say we want the truth, but when it comes right down to it, the facts can be downright depressing. So instead we go for a candidate who tells us what we want to hear. We go for a candidate who claims their political party was doing it right all along. We vote for whomever can scream their pre-written talking points the loudest. Love him or hate him, Ron Paul isn’t that guy.

Ron Paul is running for the Republican Party’s nomination, but in many respects, it’s hard to see why. As a libertarian, Paul believes in a small government that doesn’t mess with America’s free-market economy (totally kosher for Republicans). But Paul also believes the federal government should keep it’s hands off same-sex marriage, get rid of torture and pull out of all foreign wars (all about as kosher as a roasted pig wrapped in bacon).

What’s worse, Ron Paul has held the same views on just about everything since he was elected to Congress in the 1970s. Compared to every single Republican front runner, Ron Paul is the only one who hasn’t been made a fool of by flip-flopping opinions. Michele Bachmann is pretty consistent as well, but being consistently crazy is rarely a positive attribute.

Ron Paul is the only choice for Republicans.   It is my personal belief that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  The others dont stand a chance.  For one on war....hell Obama is out killing and out warmongering the warmongers.....they cant beat him there.   Safety by taking away rights???  they cant beat him there.....as he has continued Bush's horrible and rights violating Patriot Act and EXPANDED upon it...now killing American citizens without due process.   He is out dictatoring(I know not a word) the dictators....how many executive orders has he done.???...He has already assumed the power that Bush and others have given the executive branch....and he is continued the expansion.   Social issues....well...people always want something for nothing....and there is no way in hell the republicans can beat Obama on this issue.

What we have left that they may get him on is the economy.   Considering they knew about as much as Obama did prior to the recession....well.....its a draw...Bush and the republican presidents before him also expanded government so its a draw I think with the economy.  I know, I know  some say that the dems and repubs are different on this...but history proves otherwise.

That leaves Ron Paul.  

He is the only one for change.   THE ONLY ONE.

Foreign policy would be greatly altered...he would end our warmongering worldwide...bring our troops home so they can spend their money here.....one up on the warmongers...and already one up on the economy.

Safety by taking away rights.....this is an interesting one....Ron Paul obviously believes that freedom should not be taken away for security....he would end the Patriot Act and coupled with a new foreign policy of trade and friendship.....we would be safer than ever before....now of course the authoritarian minded will think otherwise...but freedom will ring on this issue...again advantage Ron Paul.

Economy....Ron Paul would bury Obama on this issue...not even close...Ron Paul is an economic genius in comparison to the simpleton Obama.....advantage Ron Paul.

Corporations....again Ron Paul would not be for subsidies or bailouts of failed corporations...and the corporations know this...so they would support Obama...and this is were he will start to slip...as the media..which is a corporation, will support Obama.....now they will use fear to convince the public that bailing out corporations is a good thing.....but the OWS shows people are catching on...again advantage Ron Paul.

Social Issues   those with an education will see through the media bias and bull on this one...unfortunately many vote in this country and decide on issues after investing about 1 hr a year on politics....so although I believe freedom is the only way to go....tyranny will win out here....although Ron Paul wouldnt really be at a disadvantage here compared with other republicans although for different reasons.   advantage Obama

Constitution   again clear advantage for Ron Paul as he actually believes in the Constitution....all the good and bad.

One thing I almost forgot is the left wing vote.  I know of many progressives who have said that they will vote for Ron Paul if he wins the nomination....no other Republican can say that....advantage Ron Paul

Then of course you have that little thing called a third party...If Ron Paul decides to run as a third party he will destroy any chances the GOP would have of winning.....so Republicans, the choice is clear.

Ron Paul 2012

R3VOLUTION

CARROLL — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says the country is finally catching up to his brand of politics and economic thinking.

For three decades, the libertarian-leaning Texan has preached limited government, a smaller role not only domestically in the form of lower taxes but also abroad, with a less adventurous foreign policy.

“Right now your biggest threat comes from your own government,” Paul said.

More than 100 people turned out Saturday morning in Carroll to hear Paul speak at Santa Maria Winery. Paul delivered opening remarks and then turned the event into a town-hall-style meeting, fielding audience questions.

Paul finished third at 12 percent behind businessman Herman Cain (23 percent) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (22 percent) in a Des Moines Register Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucus-goers released Sunday.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul reiterated his fiscal message in Carroll Saturday and made clear that he would only seek the White House a member of the GOP. (Photo: Douglas Burns)

On Saturday, Paul, a former Libertarian Party White House candidate, said he’s in a strong position as a Republican in the 2012 field and dismissed any speculation of a third-party candidacy.

NATCHITOCHES, La., October 23, 2011—Ron Paul is a consistent man. He's been preaching the same economic gospel for two generations, a gospel based on the teachings of economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, leavened by the objectivism of Ayn Rand. He's been convinced for decades of the dangers of fiat money (money backed only by confidence in the government that creates it), the supreme importance of the individual, the primacy of personal liberty as a political principle, and a laissez faire approach to the economy.

Paul believes and says the same things now that he said 40 years ago, but that's a minor type of consistency. People learn and change over the decades, and that's usually praiseworthy, not a sign of moral weakness. If Paul came to political and economic principles 40 years ago that are as true and bright to him today as they were then, that's fine, but that's not what's admirable or important about his consistency.

What's important about Paul is that his ideas are ideologically consistent. They spring from a set of principles, and he's not afraid to let his ideas go where his principles take them.

Ron Paul has the courage of his convictions.

Republicans say that they oppose the growth of the federal government. They want federal power devolved to the states. If you believe them, ask them about same sex marriage, drug legalization, and abortion. Scarcely a Republican in Washington wants those issues left to the states. They want them federalized, just as they wanted to federalize medical decisions in the case of Terri Schiavo. Republicans like to talk about individual liberty, but they don't trust you to do the "right" thing with it any more than Democrats do.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats lies in which aspects of your life they want to control. They don't disagree that you need to be controlled.

Paul does. It isn't that he thinks we should have no laws - he favors a minimal government, not zero government - but rather that he thinks your sphere of personal autonomy should be as large as it can be without damaging the autonomy of others. What control there must be should be as local as possible. If there are to be laws against drug use, they should be state, not federal. There's no constitutional reason that you shouldn't be able to watch porn in your living room while smoking a joint. That your neighbors think it's sleazy is no excuse to create a DEA.

You're next.

That's the warning from Rep. Ron Paul, who said Wednesday that killing U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn in Yemen without a fair trial is the start of a slippery slope.

“They asked me if it is an impeachable offense. It is,” he told an audience at the National Press Club. “I mean just ignoring the 5th amendment and assassinating an American citizen without due process? They won’t even tell us what the rules are -- oh, but he is a threat. Can you imagine being put on a list because you’re a threat? What’s going to happen when they come to the media what if the media becomes a threat? Or a professor becomes a threat, someday that could well happen, this is the way it works it’s called incrementalism.”

The GOP presidential candidate said he felt “very pleased” about the progress he’s made on the campaign trail, revealing to the audience he’d raised over $8 million dollars in the third quarter from 100,000 unique donors, putting him third behind Rick Perry’s $17 million and Mitt Romney’s estimated $13-15 million.

Asked to compare his fundraising numbers to that of the frontrunner, Paul said, “If you raise 8 million, half as much, and you get it from small individual donors who are fervently engaged in campaigning for you, that's a lot different than getting money that…might have come for the other candidates from special interests. I don’t get that type of money, ”

His campaign was quick to point out that Ron Paul had five times the number of donors than Rick Perry in the third quarter.

"All donors are not equal, you know. I will take a much smaller donation with the enthusiasm of people who send me money," Paul added.

The Texas Congressman said that, in a few weeks, he plans to unveil a line-item proposal on how to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget

“We don't have a budgetary crisis, we have a crisis in our understanding about what the role of government ought to be. The budget is the symptom, the taxes are the symptom,” he said.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/10/05/ron-paul-issues-another-warning-erosion-civil-liberties#ixzz1a0tqngvI

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul rallied a sold- out crowd of more than 1800 of his most ardent under-thirty-year-old supporters in New York City Monday night.

Tickets to the event cost $20-25. It was originally scheduled to take place at the famed Webster Hall's Marlin Room, but, the event had to be moved to a room twice as large at the last minute due to an overwhelming response. The final setting was in the Grand Ballroom, which has hosted celebrities to the scale of Mick Jagger and Madonna.

"We are seeing a level of enthusiasm for Ron Paul that can be compared with President Obama in 2008", said Eric Brakey, Media Coordinator for NYC Liberty HQ, the grassroots organization hosting the rally for the candidate. "Congressman Paul's youth support is different now than it was during his last presidential campaign. It's more organized and it's picking up steam and continues to grow".

As the longtime congressman from Texas stepped onto the stage, the crowd screamed with enthusiasm. The audience's biggest reaction came when he spoke about ending the Federal Reserve. "The country has changed in the last four years, but my message hasn't changed" Paul said. "The country is ripe for a true revolution".

Responding to an earlier interview with Jon Stewart, he told the crowd that he is largely ignored by the media for a couple of reasons, one being that "people in charge don't want to hear our message".

Paul, who's making his third bid for the White House, devoted the final moments of his speech to President Obama. "Obama thinks he is going to spend a billion dollars on his [re-election] campaign", but "when truth prevails you don't need a billion dollars".

And to that, the audience burst out chanting the candidate's name and didn't stop until long after he excited the room.

Respondents emphasize that Paul received only three questions during the debate, but “every time he was allowed to talk, he rocked it.”

More specifically, “Dr. Paul is the only one who has never wavered from his set goals which are truly in line with liberty and real conservative values,” a respondent wrote.

“Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan library” has attained over 50 pages of comments from poll voters. And, those commenting have Ron Paul on their mind.

“Ron Paul is the only guy who understands what truly ails America,” the most recent posting reads. Another stated, “the cowardly media is despicable for ignoring him.”

How influential is Ron Paul?
For more than three decades, Paul’s brand of uncompromising libertarianism left him on the fringes of the Republican Party. Only three of the 416 bills he has sponsored in Congress since 1997 even made it out of committee—and two of those were defeated. But events of the last three years—including the meltdown of the financial sector, massive government bailouts of private industry, and an exploding federal deficit—have turned his warnings on the dangers of debt and excessive spending into mainstream Republican thought. The Tea Party has embraced Paul’s belief that the best government is the least government, and that taxes are an intrusion on individual liberty. “Time has come around to where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years,” Paul said in May, when he announced his third campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. “The time is right.”

Ron Paul supporters know he has little chance of becoming the next president, but they say his third bid for the job is about more than winning the GOP nomination or the White House — it’s about guiding the political landscape beyond the Republican-Democrat duopoly that’s controlled Washington for more than a century.

The man who in his 2008 bid was dismissed as a sideshow has emerged this year as the prophet of libertarian-leaning conservatives and tea-party supporters alike and has come to define the burgeoning coalition that preaches lower taxes, global retrenchment and more modest use of federal powers here at home.

Recently, a person I have fun arguing with here on the vine pointed out I've been missing from the political article scene lately. She's been right. I've taken a little semi-vacation from the political field, and I've been playing around on a couple private groups, messing around with fiction writing and humor. Now, fully restored and refreshed, I decided to re-visit one of my favorite articles, and see what new quotes we can come up with. Soo... this is going to be a selection of pro-gun and pro-liberty quotes from various sources, famous and not-so-much. I'll edit this article and add more as they occur to me. YOU can add to this in the comment section. Please attribute the quotes where possible. Even give quotes of your own! No quote is too over-used. If you are anti-gun, feel free to be ignored if you get obnoxious. But also feel free to dispute the accuracy of, or the source of, the quotes contained.Here's a few to start.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin.

"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
—A.E. van Vogt (1951)

"An armed man is a citizen, an un-armed man is a slave" (Sometimes ended as "subject") Robert A. Heinlein

"An Armed Society is a polite Society" Robert A. Heinlein

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." (Often attributed to G. Washington, there is doubt as to it's veracity as a quote. If he didn't say it, he should have!)

"I've heard that phallic symbol argument before, and always from ineffectual people driven to make everyone else as helpless as they are. who's more confused, those who think weapons are sexual organs, or those who want to take everyone's sexual organs away?." Clarissa Olson, a character in "The Probability Broach", L. Neil Smith, author.

"No one has ever raped a .38! " Paxton Quigley, a pre-eminent female self defense instructor.

"Make love, not war, but be prepared for both!" Anonymous

"God created all men. Colonel Colt made'em equal!" If you know, tell me!

"The only thing that can make a 110 lb woman the physical equal to a 220 lb man is 2 lbs of Hartford steel." Various forms heard, author unknown (Hartford, Connecticut, home of Colt Firearms)

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry

"I know not what course Y'all might take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Die, Mother@!$%#er DIE!!" Neale Osborn and A.X. Perez, November, 2010

"Take a gun with you on all your walks." Thomas Jefferson to his nephew (supplied by L.Neil Smith and Robertlyn Schultz)

The following is taken verbatim from "The Probability Broach", a novel by pre-eminent Libertarian author L. Neil Smith. Permission granted by author after a request by myself. Permission may be verified by e-mailing to Mr. Smith at

Neil Smith(lneil@netzero.com)

"Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220 pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110 pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong?" Also, Clarissa Olson to Lieutenant Win Bear, in said novel.

This is from the esteemed Mr. Smith, but NOT from any novel-

“Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable
individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and
carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — rifle, shotgun, handgun,
machinegun, _anything— — any time, any place, without asking anyone’s
permission.” The Atlanta Declaration of the Libertarian Party, written by L. Neil Smith. The author of this article is a signatory to same.

 The following are from the (LAST incarnation's) comment section, but were so good I mved them up here verbatim- Originators unknown, but supplied by Mark in Wyoming;

I don’t carry a gun……..

…to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in this world.

I don’t carry a gun because I am evil. I carry a gun because I’ve lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because a real man knows how to take care and protect their property, themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing armed thugs I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

I don’t carry a gun to shoot to kill someone. I carry a gun and would shoot as necessary to stay alive. If the assailant dies as a result of a desire to harm me, it’s no loss to society

All the following is from a single work of L. Neil Smith;

"[I]f a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a
man - and you're not - what does his lack of trust tell you about his real
attitude toward women? If 'he' happens to be a woman, what makes her so
perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean
and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when
she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care
program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

"On the other hand - or the other party - should you believe anything
politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and
make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons?
What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and
ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other
countries?

"Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -
health care, international trade - all you have to do is use this X-ray
machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out
how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they
hate it."
L. Neil Smith, Sept, 1999, "Why did it have to be guns?"

"Since the criminals, being criminals, are NOT going to obey bans, therefore the law-abiding citizen MUST have the ability to fight fire with firepower." Neale Osborn, January 27, 2011.

"The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20." - Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb) Provided by etva

ANd finally, a story, sent to me in an e-mail from There They Go Again-

A Pennsylvania State Police Officer pulled over a pick-up truck owner for a faulty taillight. When the officer approached the driver, the man behind the wheel handed the officer his driver’s license, insurance card and a concealed weapon carry permit.

The officer took all the documents, looked them over and said. "Mr Smith, I see you have a CCP. Do you have any weapons with you?"

The driver replied, " Yes sir, I have a 357 handgun in a hip holster, a .45 in the glove box and a .22 derringer in my boot."

The officer looked at the driver and asked, "Anything else?"

"Yes sir, I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge and an AR-15 behind the seat."

The officer asked if the man was driving to or from a shooting range and the man said he wasn't, so the officer bent over and looked into the driver's face and said "Mr. Smith, you're carrying quite a few guns. May I ask what you are afraid of?

Mr. Smith locked eyes with the officer and calmly answered, "Not a @!$%#ing thing!

Have fun, be friendly and polite. And DON'T feed the liberals!!

In the middle of last month, while you slept (or struggled to earn a paycheck so you could turn half of it over to governments at various levels) America was invaded by alien forces—by which I mean forces alien to every last principle that once made this country worth living in.

Or fighting for.

According to a copyrighted story in the Parkersburg (West Virginia) News and Sentinel written by Pamela Brust, the Transportation Security Administration—those detestable gropers and perverts of song and lawsuit—in conjunction with other federal, state, and local agencies held an all-day field fascist-fest Wednesday, June 14, covering 5,000 square miles of what they termed the "Ohio River Transportation Corridor", a huge area covering parts of Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, all under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security, and cleverly dubbed "Visible Intermodel Prevention and Response".

"VIPR", get it?

The latest new Tim Pawlenty is the born-again neoconservative moving to the far right on warmaking issues, destined to clash with Ron Paul in the presidential debates. Actually, Pawlenty is not a born-again neocon. This is his first birth as warmaker in his latest version of Pawlenty. By contrast with Ron Paul, who has always been Ron Paul.

Today, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, released a column titled “How Should Government Treat Energy Producers?” In his column, Paul explained why a good energy market is great for the economy and what the differences are between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions

When Ron Paul announced four years ago that he was running for president, the congressman from Texas had a tough time attracting attention.

Paul -- known for his calls for a significantly limited government, opposition to the Iraq, Afghan and Libyan conflicts and his drive to get rid of the Federal Reserve -- stayed in Washington to declare his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on C-Span, the cable television station devoted to government proceedings. His entry earned a one-sentence mention near the end of a Washington Post political story, and little notice elsewhere.

This man makes so much sense its scary......people need to wake up and vote for this man.

NEW YORK (TheStreet ) -- If Ron Paul were to win the GOP presidential nomination, there's a chance he wouldn't have to worry about geographical balance on his ticket.

Paul, a Texas congressman and critic of the Federal Reserve, mentioned a former New Jersey judge and current Fox News talk show host -- Andrew Napolitano -- as a potential running mate, in an interview with TheStreet's Alix Steel in Washington this week.

Ron Paul’s followers’ passion is matched only by his detractors’ derision

Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels have dropped out of the 2012 presidential contest, and, as last week’s column pointed out, Newt Gingrich comes with some serious deficiencies in the family values department.

That leaves Texas Congressman Ron Paul who, at age 75, has announced that he is once again ready to make a third attempt to attain the Oval Office.

“I’ve been beating the same drum for 30 years,” said Paul. “I think the time is right.”

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is worried about the falling value of the U.S. dollar and doesn't want the debt ceiling raised, he told CNBC Wednesday.

But he also doesn't want to default on payments to U.S. bond holders.

Rather than raise the debt ceiling, he wants to see cuts in military spending and sales of some American assets — such as gold reserves.

"They’re worrying about raising the debt limit," said the Texas congressman. "I’m worried about the value of the dollar" especially if the Federal Reserve continues to "print money" whenever it wants.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), known and celebrated for his Libertarian views, delivered a stunning critique of the American Republic on the House floor yesterday. Paul told congress that “the last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes.” Paul backed up his dismal outlook with the following reason: “the rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems.”

Ron Paul attacked a number of U.S. policies that he believes contribute to the crumbling of the American Republic. Paul called out welfarism as one of these programs. ‘Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class,” argued Paul. Paul also identified a number of presidential powers that he feels are unnecessary and unconstitutional.  Among the powers that Paul points to are: the ability to “order assassinations,” “engage in torture,” and “wage war at will.”

The case has been made....he deserves to be president and we need him more than we know.

And here we go.....................

Ron Paul 2012

Revolution

This is going to be a selection of pro-gun and pro-liberty quotes from various sources, famous and not-so-much. I'll edit this article and add more as they occur to me. YOU can add to this in the comment section. Please attribute the quotes where possible. Even give quotes of your own! No quote is too over-used. If you are anti-gun, fell free to be ignored if you get obnoxious. Here's a few to start.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin.

"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
—A.E. van Vogt (1951)

"An armed man is a citizen, an un-armed man is a slave" (Sometimes ended as "subject") Robert A. Heinlein

"An Armed Society is a polite Society" Robert A. Heinlein

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." (Often attributed to G. Washington, there is doubt as to it's veracity as a quote. If he didn't say it, he should have!)

"I've heard that phallic symbol argument before, and always from ineffectual people driven to make everyone else as helpless as they are. who's more confused, those who think weapons are sexual organs, or those who want to take everyone's sexual organs away?." Clarissa Olson, a character in "The Probability Broach", L. Neil Smith, author.

"No one has ever raped a .38! " Paxton Quigley, a pre-eminent female self defense instructor.

"Make love, not war, but be prepared for both!" Anonymous

"God created all men. Colonel Colt made'em equal!" If you know, tell me!

"The only thing that can make a 110 lb woman the physical equal to a 220 lb man is 2 lbs of Hartford steel." Various forms heard, author unknown (Hartford, Connecticutt, home of Colt Firearms)

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry

"I know not what course Y'all might take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Die, Mother@!$%#er DIE!!" Neale Osborn and A.X. Perez, November, 2010

"Take a gun with you on all your walks." Thomas Jefferson to his nephew (supplied by L.Neil Smith and Robertlyn Schultz)

The following is taken verbatim from "The Probability Broach", a novel by pre-eminent Libertarian author L. Neil Smith. Permission granted by author after a request by myself. Permission may be verified by e-mailing to Mr. Smith at

Neil Smith(lneil@netzero.com)

"Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220 pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110 pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong?" Also, Clarissa Olson to Lieutenant Win Bear, in said novel.

This is from the esteemed Mr. Smith, but NOT from any novel-

“Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable
individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and
carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — rifle, shotgun, handgun,
machinegun, _anything— — any time, any place, without asking anyone’s
permission.” The Atlanta Declaration of the Libertarian Party, written by L. Neil Smith. The author of this article is a signatory to same.

The following are from the comment section, but were so good I mved them up here verbatim- Originators unknown, but supplied by Mark in Wyoming;

I don’t carry a gun……..

…to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in this world.

I don’t carry a gun because I am evil. I carry a gun because I’ve lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because a real man knows how to take care and protect their property, themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing armed thugs I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

I don’t carry a gun to shoot to kill someone. I carry a gun and would shoot as necessary to stay alive. If the assailant dies as a result of a desire to harm me, it’s no loss to society

All the following is from a single work of L. Neil Smith;

"[I]f a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a
man - and you're not - what does his lack of trust tell you about his real
attitude toward women? If 'he' happens to be a woman, what makes her so
perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean
and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when
she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care
program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

"On the other hand - or the other party - should you believe anything
politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and
make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons?
What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and
ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other
countries?

"Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -
health care, international trade - all you have to do is use this X-ray
machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out
how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they
hate it."
L. Neil Smith, Sept, 1999, "Why did it have to be guns?"

"Since the criminals, being criminals, are NOT going to obey bans, therefore the law-abiding citizen MUST have the ability to fight fire with firepower." Neale Osborn, January 27, 2011.

Imagine a lonely kid, undersized and overbright, living on an American air base overseas. Comic books taught him to read years before he started school and he'd tackle anything that fell open under his eyes. Anything about science or space travel leaped off the page as if printed in boldfaced italic. A neighbor's medical texts had such delightfully disgusting diseases you could practice having, and radio magazines ... in those days radios had vacuum-filled glass cylinders, see, and—radio? You know, TV blind people?