News Alert
Power Outages Hit Capital Region

Gun Owners: We Don’t Want to Become the Ukraine

More than 100 attend Day of Resistance gun rally at the Statehouse in Concord; commit to running more candidates in 2014.

Some highlights from the Day of Resistance gun rally on Feb. 23, 2014. Credit: Tony Schinella
Some highlights from the Day of Resistance gun rally on Feb. 23, 2014. Credit: Tony Schinella

A number of gun rights supporters rallied at the Statehouse on Sunday in an effort preserve their rights and get 2nd Amendment supporters motivated to elect better representation in 2014.

ALSO READ: IMAGES: New Hampshire Gun Owners Rally to Preserve Rights

Many of the speakers, buoyed by the defeat in the Legislature of a gun background check bill two weeks ago, pointed to the unrest overseas and the founding principles of the Republic as reasons to strengthen gun ownership and protection of the natural right of self-defense against both assailants and the government.

Susan Olsen, the emcee of the event, from the New Hampshire Chapter of Second Amendment Sisters, noted that the country was losing its history and had forgotten that the amendment existed because the British tried to disarm the Colonists when they tried to establish better living conditions under the crown. She said it was difficult to explain the importance of lost rights to today’s children who were used to interacting on social media sites with 140 character limits.

“We’ve taken up arms,” she said. “We’re not going to lay them down. The Bill of Rights didn’t give me the right to defend myself … God gave me that right.”

Former House Speaker William O’Brien, R-Mont Vernon, said the fight against the British was brutal at times and it was the armed farmers who killed many of the King’s troops during the war, the finest army in the world at the time. They turned the battle around, he noted. O'Brien said there would be no America if it weren’t for those who fought.

“These were armed citizens that stood up to that army,” he said. “Our Founders knew that they would have lost their lives if the Revolution had failed … they also knew that the Revolution would have failed if the armed populace … throughout the country, had not had the means of self-defense.”

Ian Underwood, an inventor and scientist who spoke against the background check bill, suggested that it might be time to stop talking about Constitutionality, because “it’s not effective and possibly counter-productive.” He said that the two constitutions – state and federal – were simple words but when quoted, often get opponents to dig in their heels and fight harder for their positions. Instead, he would like gun owners and others to think about other ways of making the point, including focusing on the issue of natural rights. Underwood asked attendees to imagine if gun ownership were not a right in the Constitution but a privilege instead. He then asked if they would change their minds because it was stated in the Constitution. Some issues, Underwood stated, were too important to let constitutionality get in the way.

“I want to be clear that I’m not making a point here about right versus wrong,” he said. “I’m making a point about persuasive power.”

Underwood added that it would be better to look at the Declaration of Independence, which asked and answered two fundamental questions – why do governments exist and where do they get their power. The Declaration defined the formation of government as a way to secure rights and derive its power by consent, from delegation, he said. 

“If it’s not for the purpose of securing rights, government can’t do it,” he said. “If it requires a power that can’t be delegated, government can’t do it.”

State Rep. Laura Jones, R-Rochester, called on attendees to get politically involved because representatives had to constantly fight to preserve natural rights. She pointed to former Rep. Susan Delemus, R-Rochester, and spoke about how the two of them campaigned together and would often encounter people who should have been their supporters but had dropped out of the process because they were discouraged by politics. Delemus lost her race by 200 votes.

“If we can only motivate all of the gun owners in the state to get out and vote for pro-gun candidates, we won’t have to work so hard, and waste so much time fighting gun control legislation,” she said.

State Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, and Olsen announced the formation of a new political action committee, PACing in New Hampshire, in order to fund pro-gun candidates for the Legislature. He too spoke about energizing candidates and working to get good people elected. Republican candidates that honored their oath did better in 2012 than 2010, he noted.

“The time is now guys,” he said. “At the end of the day, if we don’t start to take back our state … I’m going to pick on our state from the south … we’re going to look like Massachusetts … it’s not that hard to fix this.”

Hoell also pointed to election results and noted that the sponsor of the background check bill, state Rep. Elaine Ahearn, D-Hampton Falls, won a very close race in 2012 even though she was handily defeated in 2010, in a slightly different district. He said it wasn't a partisan issue, it was a legislator by legislator issue and suggested treating politicians who violated the rights of others like a puppy that does its business on the floor, by tapping it on the nose.

Hoell, who brought his youngest son to the rally, also said it was important to fix the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System process instead of trying to create more study committees and more lists. He said the background check bill would lead to federal officials coming into the state to scan documents in an effort to confiscate guns.

“Anybody paying attention to Ukraine?,” he asked. “Venezuela? Ireland? Weimar Republic? The list goes on.”

State Rep. Emily Sandblade, R-Manchester, said gun control activists trying to disarm women were waging “the real war on women,” to cheers from attendees. She said supporters of the background check bill stated falsely that making it harder to get firearms would lower domestic violence. 

“What they did not tell us was that firearms are used more often by the victims in domestic violence situations to defend themselves than are used by the perpetrators,” she said.

Oddly enough, Sandblade added, gun control activists count self-defense shootings in domestic violence situations in their gun violence numbers.

Skip Murphy, an engineer who runs the Granite Grok political website, worried about some of the conditions citizens were facing overseas and said he was stunned by the video footage of government snipers in Kiev shooting citizens. He suggested that many of the citizens overseas were probably wishing they had a 2nd Amendment to rely on right now. 

"They say it can't happen here in America," he said, "I'm sorry, that's delusional thinking ... It is up to us to teach our children and our children's children what the true meaning of freedom is and sometimes, that does require sacrifice." 

Apljak February 24, 2014 at 07:36 PM
Grace, I am not sure which matchbook school you attended for your Constitutional degree but I would sue them for larceny because they stole your money. Fortunately, you don't sit on the Supreme Court nor are you in any position of making law (God I pray that you aren't!!). Basically, you are a liberal who claims to understand a lot yet knows very little about the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment!
tojo February 24, 2014 at 08:03 PM
Obama will take your guns if he can, but his "Peeps" will always have them. These cold, hard, indisputable "Facts" cannot be denied. From the FBI: Black males ages 14 to 35, commit almost 70% of all violent crime and 90% of murders in the US, while they comprise less than 4% of the actual population. Many of them also spawn from 20 to 30 illegitimate potential little 7/11 robbers, hookers, drug addicts, rapists, drug dealers, and murderers, by age 28 or 30 with multiple, underage, unwed, more than willing sexual partners with taxpayer funded welfare paying for it all while they stand around on the corners getting drunk on Colt 45 malt liquor, high on killer weed, down on heroin, up on PCP, ripped on angel dust, zipped on crystal meth, zooped on Oxycontin, bimmped on schrooms, and bragging about it. It's, "Time to take America back from the animals."
Frank W. Chupka February 24, 2014 at 08:07 PM
No surprise the libs would come in here and post their anti-gun vomit. you're afraid of guns? You're afraid guns will get up on their own and shoot somebody? fine...that leaves more guns for me to buy and how many or what kind is none of your business. stick to your favorite past time...attending gay weddings
Larry Lang February 24, 2014 at 08:45 PM
Dear 03031, "The NRA and pro-gun crazies have been spouting statistics for their cause, in fear" How about some statistics proving that all pro gunners are crazy. I know you wouldn't dare stretch the truth any. As for me being crazy, I'm not my mother had me tested. (You probably won't get that but I tried)
Greg Brooks February 24, 2014 at 09:35 PM
I will fight anybody who is not for gun control. We lose 33 people on our soil daily, that bothers me. I am an American gun owner.
Mike February 24, 2014 at 09:41 PM
Anyone else find it quite odd that the "gunners" conveniently forget the first half of the 2nd amendment and what it means to the amendment as a whole--"a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." So what well organized militia do all the pro gun people belong to? I'll bet less than 20% ever put on a military uniform.
Susan Setley February 24, 2014 at 09:51 PM
Wow -- a whole ONE HUNDRED paranoid gun owners! Have they LOOKED at our Constitution? Are they really so stupid that they don't understand the major differences between the United States and the Ukraine? I think we should have an IQ test for guns!
Judy Boyko February 24, 2014 at 10:23 PM
take our guns take our freedom and leave us defensless against the evils of a government that wants to control its citizens. Dont let them do it, only the evils of the world will have weapons to kill.
Andrew Vernon February 24, 2014 at 10:30 PM
03031, I think you would be surprised. A lot of people at that rally, such as myself support everyone's right to choice is all matters. I might personally disagree with abortion because I am a Christian and I believe it is wrong. However, I strongly oppose the government trying to regulate a human's body. Just the same as I oppose the government regulating what I own, or spying on my email lists and phone records. Just as I oppose the government's ordering the assassination of Americans overseas. I oppose gun control because it does create a Federal database. The ATF can track how many firearms you buy through the NICS (I was told this by an ATF agent who warned me that if I buy three rifles in a short period of time I can land on their 'watch list'). They don't usually follow up due to a lack of resources, but quite frankly I don't think that the government, you or anybody else needs to know what I own. Our current administration loves to talk about gun control, all while conveniently forgetting that it was their botched sting that led to hundreds of so-called assault weapons being transferred to Mexican cartel members. Really goes to show just how committed they are to combatting gun crime right there. Lastly, I have worn a uniform. I was a Soldier for nine years and served two tours in Iraq, both in combat arms with the Ramadi. I've seen plenty of gun violence. But when my buddy got shot in the arm, did I blame the gun that shot him? Of course not, I blamed the person that pulled the trigger. Oh, and proposing an 'IQ check' to exercise a Constitutional right is truly one of the most elitist and ignorant statements I have ever seen in my life.
James Chant February 25, 2014 at 12:37 AM
To Gee Willy: "Four dead in O-HI-O". To Greg Brooks: We lose 33 daily, but up to 6,000 people use firearms to defend themselves on that same day. So... should we lose a few 1000 to save those 33? To Mike: History lesson! When the 2nd Amendment was written, "well regulated" was a common phrase in use at the time. It simply meant that something was, "properly equipped" or "In proper working order". It had nothing to do with something being overseen or organized by any government or other authority. Honestly... do you really think the Founders would write a Amendment to keep the means of over-throwing a government that was become oppressive in the hands of the people... and then intend that "safety check" to be given control of to the very government its meant to control? Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Also the term "Militia" referred to any able-bodied male (since then changed to citizen) capable of bearing arms, who is not already in the standing military or other public service... meaning its made up of The People. Gun control has killed more people than all the wars combined in just the last 100 years. Something like 20 or 30 billion have been killed because they were disarmed. You pro-gun-control people not only do not understand human nature (As Einstein once said, "The only constant in nature, is human nature.)... but you have failed to learn from your own human history as well.
Joe Mamma February 25, 2014 at 02:00 AM
What people fail to recognize is that the playing field now is wildly unequal, so disproportionate now in fact that any kind of protection against tyranny would be futile. Back when it was the farmers against British troops, both sides had horses and a rifle, and maybe the troops had an edge with some cannons. Now..."the farmers" have junky commercial rifles with 10 shot magazines, and "the troops, aka Kings men" have nuke weapons, F-18's, missles, Biological and chemical weapons, etc.. So next time somebody gives you a hard time about a 10 shot magazine, tell them you want a fully armed Apache helicopter instead!
James Chant February 25, 2014 at 04:34 AM
Joe Mamma : That would assume that the military - or a good percentage of it - will decide to become oath-breakers. Most of the military rank & file I have heard from say they will not obey an illegal order to act against American citizens. Remember, since the Nuremberg Trials, "I was only following orders" is no longer a legit excuse for committing war crimes. Soldiers today also have a duty not to obey an illegal order because of this. (And do not forget, this will not be a conflict on foreign soil... this will be a battlefield that will involve their own family and friends, not complete strangers who have a different culture and speak another language.) So... no matter how much hi-tech hardware you have, if you don't have the personnel to maintain and operate it... its all just paper weights. Keep in mind also, that the most feared small-arm weapon on any battlefield is not the AK or M16... its the lowly bolt-action deer hunting rifle. And there are millions of them in the hands of the People. Any armed conflict is not going to be two groups sitting across an open field taking pot-shots at each other. What is going to happen, is you are going to have smaller groups operating in key areas, taking out key targets at long-range with the aforementioned deer rifles. No politician tyrant will be able to stick their head out in public without several people trying to put a bullet through it the instant that happens. The same thing will happen to oath-breakers who take their side. They have to come out of their tanks and armored vehicles sometime. They have to land their planes and helicopters. They have to leave their armored road booths, they have to bring supplies and water in. Just the number of hunters each year who buy licenses in the states of NY, PA, & OH would be they largest army in the world currently. 80+ Million American gunowners would be the largest armed force the world has EVER seen. They are outnumbered no matter what. There is also a very good reason why they -the politicians- are afraid of the vets coming back home today. Its always been the duty of vets to train citizens if they are ever needed to defend the country. Since the Gulf war, they have been now trained to go after the command structure of any opposing force - the ones giving the orders. Not only to fight battles in the field against other soldiers. You can imagine why they would be the #1 threat to any government that had plans on turning oppressive of its people. And low and behold... they are doing their best to disarm vets for whatever reason they can come up with. Just like they don't want citizens owning .50cal weapons and banned them... you know the ones that can hit targets a mile and half away, and go through walls. Its not about "public" safety they want these banned (and vets disarmed)... its all about "Politician" safety.
Handsomish February 25, 2014 at 06:18 AM
And yet these Ukranians were able to oust their corrupt President without requiring a gun. I have greater concern for the mislead citizens in this country that truly believe that their possesion of a multitude of weapons offers them security from a despotic government. It offers them a pacifier for their misguided beliefs, rather than address real concerns. I don't see our population making a commitment to see real change in our government. They'd rather comfort letting their media distract them with reasons to blame the other side. Maybe we need to learn something from the Ukranians, rather than see them as inferior. Quite the opposite. They were brave and committed to see the change through. Remenicient of Occupy Wall Street, but they didn't get distracted and infiltrated by other "causes" like conspiracy theorists, pro-drug groups, and alien lovers (both illegal and extraterrestrial), that ended up frightening off those really working for our benefit. The Ukranians remained focused. Probably because they didn't have Fox to distract them.
Edward Hilferty February 25, 2014 at 08:13 AM
Owning a gun turns a 150 IQ into a 75.... Macho ships of fools.
steve forte February 25, 2014 at 12:57 PM
How bout a fishing rod Edward? Does that make one a fool too? Is one who owns both even worse?
Freddy Ramone February 25, 2014 at 02:21 PM
I am answering many different posters here in my rant. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens that want to purchase guns. Criminals will always find a way around any laws. They always do. Gun Control is not about Guns. It's about Control. The liberal decide what's best for everyone. Well that is not freedom. There are some real morons posting here about the 2nd amendment as relating only to militias. The US supreme court has already ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun to protect them selves in and out of the home and that is what the founders meant in the 2nd amendment. Why do I need 55 guns, because I want them. and I am free to collect guns. Do I need 3 AK's, 3 AR's and a UZI and 18,000 rounds of ammunition. Maybe, Maybe not. But I have them and enjoy shooting them at various gun ranges with my family and friends. You or the government don't have a right to interfere with my property that was legally purchased. Could the US become the Ukraine. Maybe or Maybe not, but the Split between the different peoples views in American has only been greater than it is now, was during the civil war. Many states are passing nullification laws because they believe the man who currently lives in the white house has been acting against the US Constitution. Could the US citizens rebel against their unjust government? Maybe, or Maybe not. But don't kid yourself, if Obama uses executive orders to ban guns tomorrow, we will see entire states want to leave the Union. I see things only getting worse until the American people have a chance to retake their government back from the scum that are currently in control.
Jane Aitken February 25, 2014 at 04:47 PM
Grace and 03101 are ProgressNH paid trolls.
Jane Aitken February 25, 2014 at 05:48 PM
Grace: "They distort, blame liberals, and think that it's ok for us all to kill each other." Well that's mighty interesting 'GRACE' since the last time I saw a threat to kill and lynch someone (about 10 minutes ago) it was from a progressive just like you who claimed to have "just as many guns" as 'teabaggers' and to be a good "shot". Hmm I don't recall the teaparty ever threatening to kill or hang anyone...
steve forte February 26, 2014 at 08:08 AM
Actualy Jane, Grace is correct about one thing.Many folks don't care if they kill each other . That's who the majority of gunshot victims are. Friends and relatives of democrats killing friends and relatives of democrats. They move to a dump part of a dump city and let their kids hang around with criminals and then scream for someone to do something when the expected happens.
Jane Aitken February 26, 2014 at 02:00 PM
When it comes to gun violence it is virtually non-existent in NH. If these gun grabbing loons want to do something worthwhile, they should go see why there is SO much violence in places like Chicago, DC, Portland, and LA... and leave us the heck alone.
Jane Aitken February 26, 2014 at 02:48 PM
You know Steve, you have something there. And what do you know, it's underreported!
Jane Aitken February 26, 2014 at 03:20 PM
This is for you 'Grace'... Australia's crime rate increased 42% after gun ban. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts
jpf2361 February 26, 2014 at 04:54 PM
Why do Liberals think they know what's best for everyone? I am, quite frankly, very tired of these out of state jerks, such as 03031 and Grace (amongst others) coming to NH and telling us what to do !!!
essay March 08, 2014 at 05:51 AM
Jane Aitken: bought for you by Charles and David Koch.
Jane Aitken March 08, 2014 at 08:15 AM
@essay: Who are you saying is bought for you by Charles and David Koch? Are you suggesting that I am paid by someone to say and do what I say? Because if you are that's quite a Statement that you could never back up with facts. Ethical people call it a big lie.
Frank March 08, 2014 at 11:51 AM
@essay...Jane Aitken: jane is correct on many levels...while the progresives enjoy bringing up the Koch brothers because they have been trold to by their handlers, we now know that they rank 59th on the list of political donors in the US and hardly the biggest donor to the party of freedom (as opposed to the "progressives" which is a cover for neo stalinists). The first 16 on the list of political donors are all left wing extremists which control the democratic party including nazi collaborator George Soros.
Jane Aitken March 08, 2014 at 07:18 PM
And not one person can even show one iota of proof of that statement, that I am 'bought' by anyone. But it's part of their lies and talking points...
jpf2361 March 08, 2014 at 09:07 PM
FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND GET OUR ATTENTION. PLEASE READ AND PASS ON. VMS If anyone can read this and still say everything is just fine…….. Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books. Saul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today....... Saul David Alinsky, a writer, was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of the modern community organizing movement. He is most noted for his book Rules for Radicals. Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA Education: University of Chicago Spouse: Irene Alinsky Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S.? All eight rules are currently in play How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky: There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important. 1) Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people 2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live. 3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty. 4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state. 5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income) 6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. 7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools 8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor. Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States ? Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots." The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S. "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
jpf2361 March 08, 2014 at 09:07 PM
Apljak March 08, 2014 at 09:32 PM
Essay doesn't like the inconvenient truth about the Koch Bros being a small player relative to the far greater amount of money given to Democrats for both influence and access by PACs ans Unions--much secretly by Soros...So she will just parrot the same lies as one of the useful idiots!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something