TIME SENSITIVE ACTION ITEM! Defend 2nd Amendment against Pres. Obama and UN Arms Treaty!

Dick Morris dedicates his daily video today to the dreadful UN Arms Treaty which will most certainly undermine the 2nd Amendment and US sovereignty.

The video is short, but packed. Click HERE.

Pay special attention to what he says about the appropriations bill.

He also posted a petition form to send letters to your representatives and senators.  Click HERE.  It is very easy.

This is time sensitive!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Kathleen10 says:

    Thanks Fr. Z. I sent it, even though we live in the People’s Republic of Connecticut. We have already seen what has been called un-Constitutional laws enacted almost overnight here, due to the Newtown tragedy. Gun controllers in our state seized on that and used it to get what they wanted, and it worked here as our governor emoted about how serious he was to listen to “the families”. It’s all so absurd. In Connecticut, if you are mentally ill you can live under an overpass, talk to yourself all day, refuse to take your medications, drive your family crazy, but you only get mental help if you stab someone or threaten to jump off a bridge. There are virtually no mental health supports here. The jails are full of people with mental health issues, untreated. Politicians ignore that despite the reality that most of the shooters involved in these terrible massacres have clearly been mentally ill. The shooter in Connecticut had a complex history of some form of autism, and other issues such as anxiety, depression, obsessions, often accompany developmental disorders such as autism. The shooter was obsessed with the previous massacres. That might have been a tip off that he needed to be looked at, but, it didn’t happen, and his poor mother (who was killed) clearly had plenty of means. He could have gotten help because she could have afforded it. People in Connecticut with no means get nothing, unless they commit something that gets puhlenty of attention. It’s tragic. Then some foolish politician comes along and uses a tragedy such as Newtown to accomplish the gun control he was seeking all along. Everybody must lose their precious Constitutional right guaranteed under the Second Amendment in order to appease billionaire gun control freaks such as the former Mayor Bloomberg of New York, who is close enough to have had an inordinate amount of influence here.
    What is galling is that all of these political leaders have armed security to protect them. So do most Hollywood actors and actresses. There is no shortage of hypocrisy.

  2. Elizabeth D says:

    I was inspired today by a Gospel witness in Syria, where people’s lives really are in danger. We must not glorify weapons. They are not going to save us. Counting on weapons, overemphasizing weapons is risky and may not be a good witness. Catholic Culture has a news piece today entitled “Syrian Catholic bishop condemns Orthodox bishop’s call to arms.” He used words like “insane” and “reckless”. God bless Archbishop Hindo and watch over the Christians of Syria. see: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19940

    “In “the situation in which we find ourselves, every individual, even Christian, is free to make his own choices according to conscience,” Archbishop Hindo [the Syrian Catholic bishop] added. “Last year the government had offered me 700 Kalashnikovs to be distributed among the Christians of Hassaké, and a thousand for those of Qamishli, and I refused. We are against violence, from whatever side it comes.” “

  3. JonPatrick says:

    Elizabeth D, I don’t think it is about “glorifying” weapons. It may not be everyone’s preference to deal with the increasing lawlessness and violence in society by owning weapons. However today we have that choice here in the US due to our Constitution. The question is whether we keep that freedom of choice, or allow a group such as the UN to decide what is best for us. I would prefer that we make that decision ourselves, preferably by keeping the rights that we have had for over 200 years.

  4. Andy Lucy says:

    Elizabeth D, if it be your choice to refuse to take reasonable precautions regarding your physical safety, that is your decision. However, I take my responsibility as the protector of my family very seriously. I work in a field where I deal with offenders who often represent the side of life that you apparently never see. I deal with murderers, rapists, child molesters, thieves and the drug addicted. They are all God’s creations, however many of them would not hesitate one nanosecond before snuffing out another human life. If you wish to continue to think that only Syria is “…where people’s lives really are in danger…”, and fail to recognize the dangers here, fine. But advocating that I should divest myself of my means of protecting those whose protection God has deemed to make me responsible? Not on your tintype, missy. Won’t happen.

    Do I look to violence to settle every conflict? Of course not. However, regardless of your pollyanna attitude, there are situations, which occur more regularly than you realize, where violence is the only response that allows the survival of those whose protection I am responsible for. The Catechism elucidates this marvelously… CCC 2265 “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”

  5. Gus Barbarigo says:

    I agree with Andy Lucy (above) and the Orthodox prelate. Have the Catholic authorities quoted in the article even read the catechism? Have they read the Bible? The call to arms was essentially a call to defend the tabernacle of the Lord, the children, widows, and the sick. This is not entirely unlike the Cristeros War in Mexico.

    I respect the input of Elizabeth D (above), but if she were in Syria and she or those dear to her were under attack, she might be singing a different tune! As to martyrdom, it is one thing to choose it for ourselves (there is the possibility of a duty to escape), but can we choose it for our families?

  6. AnAmericanMother says:

    So many people are happily living in a bubble – a bubble that can be shattered at a touch.
    To imagine that violence only occurs on the other side of the world is wishful thinking.
    How can anyone live anywhere near a major metropolitan area in the U.S. and not be prepared to defend his or her family? For that matter, if you live way out in the country where the sheriff’s response time may be anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours (if a car is available), how can you not be prepared to defend your family? Of course, the Supreme Court has held that the police have absolutely no obligation to defend any particular individual, being responsible only for the general public safety.
    I am perhaps more aware of the need for self-defense than average. Long ago, when I was around 12 years old and living in a nice, affluent suburban community, I awoke around 2 one morning to discover a thug breaking in my bedroom window. My dad heard my screams and shot the man (didn’t kill him – it was bird shot – but it was sufficient for the purpose.) When the police officer arrived (45 minutes later) he basically said, “Good job, next time use buckshot.”
    Instead of being a terrified victim (or a raped or dead victim) I was a reassured and happy child because my father took seriously his duty to defend.
    Please, if you will, pray for the repose of his soul.

Comments are closed.