"When a liberal sees a firearm they see a fearful weapon that they wish only to be in the hands of government, naively ignoring the obvious facts that:

1) Criminals are never going to follow their fond wishes, 

2) Officers of government are most often not going to be there for them in a crisis,

3) We the People are the government in America, the sovereign, and the sovereign must possess the physical means to protect their people and their country from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

When a conservative sees a firearm he sees a primary implement of liberty, one that can be misused by evil men, of course, but that is, nonetheless, an indispensable tool, because this is a fallen world which contains many evil men, men who will only be restrained by the will and force of good men who are armed."

-- Tom Hoefling, December 15, 2012
The Foundry 

Michaela Bendikova 

After [Alleged] President Obama released his fiscal year 2013 budget, it became clear that the Administration reneged on its promise to fully fund the needs of the U.S. nuclear complex to the Senate pursuant to its advice and consent to the New Strategic Arms Control Treaty (New START). Thankfully, though, some in Congress are well aware of the value that U.S. nuclear weapons provide as the nation’s ultimate insurance policy. 

Representative Mike Turner (R–OH), chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, recently introduced the Maintaining the President’s Commitment to our Nuclear Deterrent and National Security Act of 2012 (H.R. 4178). The bill addresses some of the key issues related to the funding for the nuclear weapons complex and links reductions of U.S. nuclear arsenal to proper appropriations for the nuclear weapons complex. 

The Administration is reportedly moving to reduce the arsenal of operationally deployed nuclear warheads to as few as 300. Not only would these reductions be expensive—and funded from the already overstretched Department of Defense’s budget—but they are not based on a sound assessment of the international environment. The Administration is operating on the premise that if the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal, other countries will follow its lead. This is not going to happen, because countries have their own reasons why they acquire nuclear weapons that are not primarily derived from the number of U.S. weapons. 

Turner’s bill would prevent these unilateral reductions by means of “a limitation that nuclear force reductions should be implemented in such a way as to assure Russia does not deploy nuclear force levels superior to those of the United States.”

Read this story at blog.heritage.org ...