t question: When is it justified to shoot back?

I'll explore both sides of this argument here and then share my own views.

On the "shoot back" side of the argument, this woman had every right to defend herself against armed assailants who were engaged in acts of violence (breaking down her door) and who conspired to kidnap her daughter. In the legal world, the term "conspiracy" simply means more than one person was involved in planning the event. This was, without question, a conspiracy to kidnap a human being.

Shooting back was the only reasonable solution remaining for Maryanne, who had already tried to verbally say no when Child Protective Services insisted they were going to take her daughter away. Notably, it was CPS that brought guns to the scene by calling the police. So the escalation of the event can only be blamed on CPS, not Godboldo.

On the "don't shoot back" site of the argument, the only argument I've really heard so far is from people who say "you should never shoot back against government agents." In other words, the fact that the kidnappers and assailants are on the city payroll somehow gives them the right to violate your rights and freedom, to assault your person and your home, and to commit the felony act of kidnapping your teenage daughter. This seems a bizarre bit of logic.

I suppose another argument against shooting back would be the philosophical argument that violence never solves anything. But it sure can be a deterrent to would-be thieves, rapists and kidnappers, which is exactly what Maryanne just proved. She was able to hold them off for 12 hours by allegedly firing a single round. Do you think they would have stayed away for 12 hours if she didn't have a gun?

Now, to use Obama's current doublespeak, the truth is that Maryanne didn't even fire a gun at all. She was only engaged in "kinetic action" in the protection of her child. That term -- "kinetic action" -- is what Obama uses to explain how the war in Libya is not a war. It's just "kinetic action" (i.e. pieces of lead moving at very high velocities).

I'm thinking of posting a sign on the front door of my own home that reads, "This house is protected by kinetic action."

Why Hitler loved a disarmed population

But let's get back to the issue of when it's appropriate to shoot back. The "don't shoot back" crowd seems to think that the government can do no wrong. If the government comes for you in the middle of the night to kidnap your children for no justifiable reason, you're supposed to just surrender and do what you're told. This is the entire argument of the "don't shoot back" crowd.

Hitler would have loved this idea, of course. In fact, he pursued it quite diligently. One of the most important elements of his plan to exterminate the Jews was to disarm them first. That's why Hitler passed gun control laws before he started rounding up Jews and sending them off to the gas chambers. It's always easier to round people up if they don't shoot back, you see. An armed population is much more difficult to subject to genocide because they have the pesky problem of causing kinetic action to take place.

This is the reasoning behind the non-profit group JPFO -- Jews for the Preservations of Firearms Ownership (www.JPFO.org). Far from being a bunch of gun nuts, these folks are scholars of history who fully realize that if the Jews in the late 1930's hadn't given up their guns under Hitler's gun control agenda, they would have been able to assemble a far more effective resistance against government tyranny.

The French Resistance, of course, kept their guns. And their explosives. This is what made the French Resistance so effective at interdicting German supply lines (blowing up railroad tracks, ammo dumps, German vehicles and so on). The French Resistance is a significant factor of why we won the war against tyranny in World War II. We have to remember to thank the French for holding on to their rifles and bullets. Otherwise, Hitler might have succeeded in his world conquest.

See, governments far too often become tyrannical, out-of-control police states that end up assaulting (and sometimes murdering) their own citizens. It happened in Germany. It happened in Russia. It happened in China and a dozen other countries around the world. And although America today certainly isn't as bad as Nazi Germany in 1941, there are very clear signs that America is headed into precisely such a scenario, where innocent civilians are targeted by armed government thugs who commit felony crimes in the name of the government.

The situation with Maryanne Godboldo is precisely such a sign. When a woman is threatened, coerced, and has her front door broken down by armed thugs conspiring to kidnap her daughter -- merely because she refused to give her daughter a dangerous psychiatric drug -- that is a sure sign that the medical police state has descended upon us and is operating in a bold, aggressive manner.

Would I engage in kinetic action to protect my own children?

Personally on all this, let me explain the context of the statement I'm about to make here. First off, I have many friends who are cops. I volunteered countless hours and dollars to help cops in Arizona, and I have great respect for the importance of local law enforcements. Local cops are, for the most part, really dedicated, professional people, and they are underpaid and almost universally unappreciated.

That being said, if a group of them broke into my home to kidnap my child, I would regrettably and sadly engage them with kinetic action. As long as they stayed outside the front door, I would hold off and verbally warn them to go away, but the second they smash through the front door, they become justified targets of kinetic action. The fact that they collect their paychecks from the government makes absolutely no difference. It does not justify their criminal intent. If anything, the fact that they are committing such crimes (kidnapping is a felony) while wearing a badge makes their acts even more offensive than if a street thug did the same thing.

Are my actions justified? Under the laws of our land -- as well as in the scriptures of every major world religion -- they most certainly are! While we all hopefully seek to avoid violence in every way possible, when violence is brought to our doorstep and into our home, we have little choice but to respond in our own defense.

This is precisely the purpose of the Second Amendment, of course: Not to make guns available for hunting and sport shooting, but rather to give the People of America the power to protect themselves from exactly the kind of armed government tyranny we see being applied to Maryanne Godboldo. Again, I'm no gun nut, and I'm not a hunter. The idea of shooting a living creature or human being is extremely disturbing to me. But if driven to such circumstances by a tyrannical police state that seeks to force me to medicate my own children at gunpoint, I will do what is necessary to protect my family and my life.

Maryanne Godboldo is a hero for her actions. CPS workers and the local police officers who raided her home are the real criminals here, and I can only hope and pray that when justice is finally served, Maryanne will be vindicated. And the medical police state will be completely disarmed so that these Big Pharma henchmen can no longer threaten the lives and liberties of innocent Americans who only seek to protect their children from the devastating side effects of psychiatric medications.

Have no illusions: We the People are under siege by the Big Pharma-influenced medical police state. We are being threatened and assaulted by armed agents who are blatantly conspiring to carry out the wishes of the drug companies. We are being forced to medicate our children against our will and against our better judgment.

CPS workers and law enforcement officers need to learn that when they threaten us with guns and violence, we will shoot back if driven to such actions. And I know quite a few places across America where, if CPS workers try to kidnap innocent children, they will not only be shot but hung from low-hanging branches of nearby trees along with a large piece of plywood spray-painted with the warning message: "WE SHOOT KIDNAPPERS."

Photo credit: Freep.com

http://www.freep.com/article/201104...

Take action now to help Maryanne Godboldo

(Thanks to Ethan Huff for these resources:)

Supporters of Maryanne have set up a website called "Justice for Maryanne Godboldo". Its organizers have created a "Calling Campaign" to demand that urges the public to call every single US representative in Detroit, every single day, to demand an investigation into CPS and the Department of Human Services for their crimes in this case (http://justice4maryanne.bbnow.org/e...). Those contacts include:

Fred Duhal - (517) 373-0844, freddurhal@house.mi.gov

Shanelle Jackson - (517) 373-1705, shenellejackson@house.mi.gov

David Nathan - (517) 373-3815, davidnathan@house.mi.gov

Jimmy Womack - (517) 373-0589, jimmywomack@house.mi.gov

Lisa Howze - (517) 373-0106, lisahowze@house.mi.gov

Rick Snyder - (517) 373-3400, rick.snyder@michigan.gov

The key perpetrators who instigated this heinous crime against humanity include:

Michael Patterson, District Manager with the DHS children's division administration of Wayne County - (313) 852-1700

Michigan Department of Human Services - (517) 373-2035

Also, be sure to check out the "Justice for Maryanne Godboldo" Facebook page at:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Justi...

www.naturalnews.com/032091_Maryanne_Godboldo_gun_rights.htmlApril 18, 2011