Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘gun control’

Obama Will Sign UN Gun Treaty While Congress Is On Vacation


If you have been living in a cave somewhere and just rejoined society, then you have not heard about the United Nations Gun Control Treaty. It is designed to control all gun purchases all over the world. It is also designed to control guns, ammunition and who can possess fire arms. In the treaty is a section for gun registration which always leads to gun confiscation. This treaty’s ultimate goal is the disarming of America, so that their One World Government can be established and all peoples be subjugated to tyrannical reign.
President Obama knows he will never get this treaty approved by Congress, and therefore has decided to ignore our Constitution and sign the treaty in private while Congress is on vacation.
While you are ready this article, please take the time to use their efforts to contact your Senators urging them to stop President Obama. – Jerry Broussard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CCRKBA.org

CCRKBA.org

BELLEVUE, WA – -(Ammoland.com)- You heard it straight from the horse’s mouth. Jay Carney said Obama will sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty “before the end of August…We believe it’s in the interest of the United States.”

This is very strategic timing considering Congress is on a 5 week vacation lasting thru the month of August!

These back door tactics are nothing new for the Obama Administration, which is why we are using tactics of our own to stop his anti-gun agenda. We have the home fax numbers of every Senator so while they are absent from the Capitol we can demand they must not ratify the UN Gun Treaty once Obama signs it.

We CAN stop this international treaty from reaching American soil by killing it the United States Senate. The U.S Senate must ratify an international treaty for it to be effective. They would need 67 votes to ratify the treaty. Reach every U.S. Senator at their home office; tell them you do not want this treaty in OUR United States!

Select Here To Fax The U.S. Senate At Their Home Offices:

Demand They KEEP THEIR TREATY AWAY FROM OUR GUNS –

DO NOT Ratify The UN ‘Arms Trade Treaty’!

Everything Obama tackles in office is strategically timed and politically motivated. He only looks out for himself, his fellow liberals, and his anti-gun agenda. After mass shootings the Administration would launch all-out attacks on our gun rights since the country would be more susceptible to change after a traumatic event. He made sure the Benghazi cover up was swept under the rug until he got re-elected. He will wait to attack certain issues until the 2014 Congressional elections so he’ll know how many liberals are by his side.

Obama believes now is the best time to sign the UN Gun Treaty since Congress is out of Washington. He will have less scrutiny to worry about if Congress is not nearby. He also thinks the public eye is not paying attention too closely. It is the slow summer months, people are on vacation, Congress is out of Washington so nothing must be happening.

Obama may think he is being sneaky but we will make sure the public knows what he is up to and so will all 100 U.S. Senators. By sending faxes to each Senator’s home office, they will realize how important this issue is to the American people. If we are reaching out to them while they are on vacation they will know they must take action. We must flood the home offices with faxes from Patriots across the country demanding our U.S. Senate does not ratify this international gun grab!

Gun advocates are weary of the language in the treaty including the fact that ‘small arms and light weapons’ are among the included weaponry that could be regulated by the United Nations. The UN Gun Treaty is a lot like ObamaCare; we will not know what it fully entails until it is implemented. It is impossible to trust the UN’s reassurance that this treaty will not affect our current gun laws or our Second Amendment. After all, the UN Arms Trade Treaty had previously been rumored as a replacement of the Second Amendment.

The Obama Administration seems to be thrilled with the thought of global gun control. John Kerry cannot wait for it to be signed:

“As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty.”

We must make it clear TODAY to the Senate and the White House that the Second Amendment must be protected and that they must reject any and all U.N. Gun Control. Tell them to KEEP THEIR TREATY AWAY FROM OUR GUNS!

All of the evidence suggested Trayvon threw the first punch, Trayvon was on top, Trayvon was unloading significant damage onto Zimmerman, and Zimmerman used deadly force to defend himself. No matter what the facts are, the anti-gunners continue to push their agenda to try to get what they want.

It is our job as Americans and Second Amendment Patriots to meet the anti-gun crowd head on. We will fight any legislation that tries to destroy our self-defense laws or our Second Amendment rights. We need your help in order to launch a significant attack against the anti-gun agenda. They use smoke, mirrors, and lies to push their agenda while we show the facts. So many resources are needed in order to be successful against the anti-gun crowd. Anything you can give us will be substantial in maintaining our goal of protecting America’s Second Amendment!

Select Here To Fax The U.S. Senate At Their Home Offices:

Demand They KEEP THEIR TREATY AWAY FROM OUR GUNS –

DO NOT Ratify The UN ‘Arms Trade Treaty’!

The uncertainty begins in the discussion of small arms. Where will the regulations on our small arms start, and where will they stop? They are even trying to include ammunition regulations in the Arms Trade Treaty! Will the United Nations try to impose international licensing requirements, an international registry, or international?

The last negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty took place in July 2012, just four months before the Presidential election. Obama did not want to take a big stance for global gun control just months before his re-election but now he has made it clear he is for total gun control. He also told voters he would not be re-visiting negotiations for an Arms Trade treaty but here we are.

Since his re-election it has become clearer than ever what is at the top of his agenda; taking our guns away! The Obama Administration has been exploiting tragedies since the election to push gun control at the city, state, federal, and now GLOBAL level.

Our Senate took a stance before the Presidential election when 51 of them wrote Obama a letter saying they would not support an Arms Trade Treaty. We must let our entire U.S. Senate know we do not support international gun control. They must not ratify this international treaty.

Sincerely Yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Ammoland Click to read AmmoLand FTC Marital Disclosures Distributed to you by AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.

Mayor Bloomberg: New York Gun Crimes are Virginia’s Fault


The following article is what prompted my naming this blog; “What Did You Say?”. These extreme, liberal Left wackos are convinced that we are so stupid that we will actually believe them when they make such moronic statements. Please, someone stop the world and let them off. – Jerry Broussard

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 
 
Gun grabbers always blame gun crime on the guns themselves. Or global warming. Anything but the criminals. Like Sheila Jackson Lee said earlier this year: “Don’t blame the gangbangers.” They need rehabilitation, not punishment, and we just need to get rid of all the guns.
 
 
Chicago and Detroit violence isn’t blamed on draconian gun control laws, but the fact that surrounding states have fewer restrictions on guns. And those guns end up being smuggled into the metropolitan areas of Illinois and Michigan. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is peddling that same excuse for his own city’s gun crimes. New York City is number three in number of gun murders committed between 2009 and 2010, after Los Angeles and Chicago. They had 1,101 murders committed with guns during that time period. And he can’t blame gun control.
 
 
He can’t take any responsibility. He’s got to find someone or something else to blame: “Despite all we do to keep our city safe, we’re increasingly at the mercy of weak national gun laws and weak gun laws in other states. We have been attacking this problem from every angle, but we cannot do it alone.”
 
 
Bloomberg’s chief policy adviser John Feinblatt stated that more guns from Virginia were recovered from New York City crime scenes than from any other state, and it’s been that way for a long time: “Take Virginia. That state requires no background checks for private sales, and the legislature in that state even recently rolled back their state laws by stripping their one-gun-a-month purchase limit.”
 
 
Did it ever occur to Bloomberg or Feinblatt that criminals are attracted to “gun-free zones?” Did it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, if New York adopted a more gun-friendly culture (which won’t happen), there would be a lot less desire for criminals to smuggle guns in from other states into New York, and a lot less desire to commit crimes at all? It’s not that other states are too gun-friendly. It’s that New York City, Detroit and Chicago have bought into the idea that gun-free zones are the answers to violence.
 
 
If every state repealed their respective gun control laws, then there would be no safe place for criminals. Violent crime would be rare.

URGENT NEWS ALERT: Obama Commits to Signing UN Arms Trade Treaty While Congress at Summer Recess


The number one goal of the United Nations is to become the political entity that rules all nations or in other words, the one world government.  To accomplish that goal, they have to continue to exert their authority and power over individual countries and they have been quite successful at doing this in recent years.

One of the key pieces of international law that needs to be in place before the UN can take over the world is to control all weapons, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons and ammunition.  Over the past few years, the UN has been pushing one treaty that will help to accomplish that goal.  It is the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty is a treaty that would regulate the international sale and transfer of all conventional weapons throughout the world.  Conventional weapons are sea and land mines, rockets, missiles, cluster munitions, non-nuclear bombs, shells, small arms and light weapons.  By small arms, they mean handguns, rifles and shotguns of all kinds, regardless of their use or design.

A number of Second Amendment supporters and gun rights advocates believe that this treaty could be used to further regulate guns in the US and infringe on the rights of Americans to bear arms.  One hundred and thirty members of Congress jointly signed a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, insisting that they reject the UN Arms Trade Treaty, saying:

“As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty.”

However, Kerry released a statement about the treaty, saying:

“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.  [The treaty is] an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has indicated that President Obama intends to sign the treaty by the end of August.  Speaking on behalf of Obama, Carney said:

“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States.  While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

Notice that the time frame that Obama has given for his signature of the UN Arms Trade Treat just happens to coincide with Congress’s summer recess, which makes me wonder if he is going to try to pull something like a recess appointment to push it through without congressional approval.  But legally, he can’t because in order for an international treaty of any kind to become binding to the United States, it must be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate.  At this time, it does not appear that there is enough support in the Senate to muster up 67 out of 100 votes.

Ratified or not, it’s clear that the Democratic Party continues to do their part in turning over US sovereignty to a radically liberal organization that is against everything America stands for.  The UN is against capitalism and the American way of government.  They have been actively undermining the Christian religion, traditional family values, parental authority and free speech.  The UN passed a massive hate crimes bill that makes any form of language against homosexuality to be a hate crime.  Preaching the Bible is a hate crime according to the UN.

So is it any wonder that Kerry and Obama want to just join the UN efforts to undermine and destroy America?  I, for one, believe that the United Nations is a terrorist organization that is actively trying to overthrow the US and subvert our way of life.  They need to be kicked out of our country.  Let them build a towering office building in a nation that really cares.  Leaving the UN would also save us hundreds of billions of dollars that could go a long way to putting American back on our financial feet.

Iraq Vet Slams Legislators Over NY SAFE Act: “My Right Trumps Your Dead! I Earned It In Blood!”


by http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/iraq-vet-aaron-weiss-slams-ny-safe-act-before-legislators-my-right-trumps-your-dead-i-earned-it-in-blood/#ixzz2Xw2FWMu8

Aaron Weiss, an Iraq combat veteran and law enforcement officer, spoke to the motion to repeal New York’s SAFE Act at the Dutchess County Legislature back in March of this year. Weiss, from Poughkeepsie, took to the podium and denounced the sweeping measures of the tyrants in New York asking them “Why is dead children your battle cry?”

Weiss said that he had attended the previous meeting in regards to the resolution to repeal the massive gun control law known as the NY SAFE Act, signed into law earlier this year by Governor Andrew Cuomo. His attendance at the first meeting was simply to hear what everyone had to say. He remained silent, but not on this day.

“I heard some shocking things from some people and some legislators,” Weiss said of the previous meeting. “They said it took a lot of courage to pass the SAFE Act. Apparently, my definition of courage differs from yours.”

“You see,” Weiss continued, “if it was really so courageous a bill, and it took so much courage to pass it, then why was it done in the middle of the night when no one could see it or read it? That’s not courage. That’s a mafia style sit-down to divvy up what’s good for the bosses.”

“Courage,” he added, “is taking the right and true course of action, not the politically expedient one and anyone who is proud of this law must also be proud of the PATRIOT Act, the TSA (Transportation Security Agency), imprisoning Japanese citizens in World War II, since all these actions were spurred on by emotional fear and rammed through in the name of public safety.”

He then took a direct shot at all the anti-Second Amendment politicians who used the tragedy of Sandy Hook to advance their agendas.

“Another issue is the insistence of certain people to stand on the graves of dead children and challenge those that disagree to say it to the parent’s faces,” he blasted. “Well, I, for one, will pick up that gauntlet.”

“First off, why is ‘dead children’ your battle cry?” Weiss asked passionately. “You didn’t say anything about the hundreds of Chicago children being killed and for some reason you only screamed when it happens to wealthy white ones.”

“And yes, I’ll say to anyone’s face,” Weiss added, “my right is more important than your dead, because I fought for it first hand. I washed the blood of my friends out of my Humvee and I picked up their mangled bodies and I fought day in and day out.”

Weiss was visibly emotional recalling his military service and the deaths of fellow soldiers on the battlefield.

“I did more things than people can imagine,” he said. “So, yeah, my right trumps your dead.”

“I earned it in blood!” Weiss proclaimed. “I gave up a lot for this country, including my youth, and better men than me gave up a whole lot more so that all of you, myself included, could enjoy the rights that are guaranteed to us in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

“We didn’t go through all of that to come back home and watch you surrender what we fought for happen based on the demented acts of a couple of mad men,” he chided.

He then closed out his comments by addressing the legislators who were specifically going to vote against the repeal resolution. He said that he understood that they would vote based on “some misguided sense of the public good.” However, he questioned, as a law enforcement officer, their true resolve.

In Weiss’ words, “Since voting to take away someone’s rights is totally different than being asked to enforce it, I want you to consider this. If you support the SAFE Act so whole heartedly, are you willing to stand with law enforcement members who lead from the front to enforcement? What I mean by that is if a constituent of yours feels so alienated by this law and the manner in which it was passed and they refuse to comply with it, are you willing to stack up on their front door and go in first?”

“I bet if a clause was in this bill that required you, the elected leadership, our elected leaders to go in the door first, I bet you would not be so steadfast,” he said in a forceful conclusion.

Those listening erupted in applause as a call came up, “Can we have some quiet in the chambers please so that we may continue on.”

This is what it’s going to take, more people not being silent or just sitting behind the keyboard griping, but going before their legislatures and giving voice to your grievances against them for their tyrannical moves. Aaron Weiss is taking the stand that patriots of the past have taken. Will you?

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not


Do fewer guns mean fewer deaths? Not necessarily, according to a study by the CDC. (Photo credit: ABC)

Parents are upset over gun violence. Kids are upset over having to hold up signs all day. (Photo credit: ABC News)

The Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, under the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently published a study of findings related to violence and guns. Some of the results may come as a shock – to those on both sides of the gun control argument.

The study was conducted as part of the 23 Executive Actions signed by President Obama in January in an effort to reduce gun violence. The order specifically called to “issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

Some have posed the logical question as to why the CDC would become involved in such a study which focuses on gun violence when the priority of the agency lies in the preventing and control of diseases. The academic community chose to study gun violence as a public health problem, partly because, according to the study, “Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious.” Therefore, gun violence is being studied in the same manner of a contagious disease.

The study did, however, recognize the right to bear arms as a basic human right acknowledged by the United States Constitution.

“An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.”

The initial summary of the study reiterated the need for sound evidence from a scientific standpoint to produce public policies that will best support the rights of the people while still doing whatever possible to protect the public from potential threats of violence.

“The evidence generated by implementing a public health research agenda can enable the development of sound policies that support both the rights and the responsibilities central to gun ownership in the United States. In the absence of this research, policy makers will be left to debate controversial policies without scientifically sound evidence about their potential effects.”

While the problem of gun violence is multi-faceted with no one single solution, the study resulted in a whole plethora of useful information (the entire study can be read here).

There were five primary areas of interest on which the study focused: The characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, gun safety technology, and the influence of video games and other media.

It was found that there are vast differences in who is more likely to become a victim of gun violence, with primary factors lying in socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Homicide rates were shown to be significantly higher in African Americans, while suicide rates were higher in Caucasians.

Additionally, the study concluded that high rates of poverty, illicit drug trafficking and substance use all increase the risk of becoming involved in gun violence. In addition, “criminals often engage in violence as a means to acquire money, goods or other rewards.”

However, the study also inadvertently explored some of the myths surrounding what seems like a recent epidemic of gun violence, including accidental deaths and mass shootings.

According to the study, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century.” Accidental deaths resulting from firearms accounted for less than one percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.

“Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. … It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.”

The study also explored an often overlooked statistic regarding suicide, especially among veterans. “Firearm-related suicides — though receiving far less public attention — significantly outnumber homicides for all age groups, with suicides accounting for approximately 60 percent of all firearm injury fatalities in the United States in 2009. In 2010, suicide was the 10th leading cause of death among individuals in the United States over the age of 10.”

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. …  According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

In reference to gun safety technology, the study claims that “research from the injury prevention field indicates that changing products to make them safer is frequently more effective at reducing injury and death than trying to change personal behavior.”

Is it the guns that are violent or the people behind them? (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)

Judging by what they’re wearing, it was both cold and wet that day. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)

With the latest gun debate, there has been more emphasis placed on violent video games, movies and other media. However, the study’s findings on the influence of these things were inconclusive.

“The vast majority of research on the effects of violence in media has focused on violence portrayed in television and the movies, although more recent research has been expanded to include music, video games, social media, and the Internet. Interest in media effects is fueled by the fact that youth are spending more time engaging with media that portrays increasing amounts of violence. Although research on the effects of media violence on real-life violence has been carried out for more than 50 years, none of this research has focused on firearm violence in particular as an outcome. As a result, a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and additional research is necessary.”

The results of this study were surprisingly unbiased for the most part and closely resemble the findings from a similar study conducted following the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, in which the CDC concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

Gun-Rights Documentary ‘Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire’ Reasoned Counter to Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling For Columbine’


By / http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/06/gun-rights-documentary-assaulted-civil-rights-under-fire-reasoned-counter-to-michael-moores-bowling-for-columbine/#sthash.Yv3OA8Fp.dpuf

“Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire” is a reasoned counter to Michael Moore‘s “Bowling for Columbine” and, as such, a constructive addition to the current national firearms debate.

SEE VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uWoK0YGW4K0#t=2s

Director Kris Koenig’s inspired choice of rap star Ice-T as narrator signals the film’s relative finesse in addressing gun owner stereotypes as a way of arguing against most — but not all — firearm restrictions.

We hear from gun owners of all stripes — women, minorities, old-timers, paraplegics, even an LGBT gun group called the Pink Pistols — making the movie’s fundamental assertion that self-protection is a right and, in times when the “thin veneer of civilization” breaks down, a necessity, a defense for the defenseless.

There’s much talk about constitutional rights, no mention of high-capacity magazines or the effectiveness of gun laws in other nations.

For the filmmakers, it’s all about the 2nd Amendment, which, to their thinking, demands a responsibility for one’s own well-being, the “most sacred civil right.”

READ MORE AT LATIMES.COM

VIDEO: When NJ Gun Grabbers Don’t Get Their Way


By / http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/06/video-when-nj-gun-grabbers-dont-get-their-way/

 

The following is an e-mail received from Amy Brittin of NJ2AS.com:

On Thursday, the NJ Assembly was voting on several horrible gun bills, specifically S2723.  This heinous bill would change our lifetime Firearms ID Cards to a 5 year renewable magnetic strip that is placed on our Driver’s Licenses.  This strip will only be readable by NJ FFL’s so no out of State purchases, no private purchases, and no more ammo except for in person at an FFL because they’ll need to read your magnetic strip.

No more internet sales of ammo or guns, only in person sales are allowed, and everything will be in a registry, even ammo!  Also, it requires State approved training for all FID cards, so minorities, single women, poor people will not be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights.  They are attaching a financial expenditure, and a rather high one at that, to you’re being able to exercise your rights.

This magnetic strip  as well as your Firearms private information, will be administered by the NJ Motor Vehicle Department, the same people that were recently arrested for selling Driver’s Licenses to illegal immigrants.  There were department wide arrests made in this operation whereby MVC employees created “legal” licenses using information from law abiding NJ drivers. http://bit.ly/18jipON

 At the Assembly, the gun grabbers thought they had the Yea votes lined up for this bill.  After this vote, the bills that passed would be placed on Christie’s desk to be signed or vetoed within 45 days. If he doesn’t veto them, after 45 days they become law.  Watch the below video to see what happens when they think they have the votes, but don’t.  This is an open mic recording of the assembly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drKS61xiIsM&feature=player_embedded

Be sure to support this group in their fight for 2nd amendment rights in the state of New Jersey.

Is It Liberal Craziness Or Something Much Worse?


By /- See more at: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/06/is-it-liberal-craziness-or-something-much-worse/#sthash.NNzuX0Ny.dpuf

let me thinkSince the complete takeover of our government by the Left in 2008, we have become accustomed to a level of craziness that surpasses belief. Oh sure, you cannot lay the responsibility for the disappearance of common sense as we used to know it at Obama’s feet; the craziness began long before he took over.

It has just gotten much worse. Our society at this point resembles a house that is falling in from a termite infestation.

The undermining has been going on for a long time, with those voracious little insects nibbling away at the structure of the house with their tunneling over a long period of time, but the foundation of the house has only recently become so weak as to begin caving in altogether.

As a writer, I used to be able to use hyperbole to make a point. Hyperbole is a form of exaggeration, where you can set up a literary premise that is far-fetched, but people understand that the situation you set up metaphorically is actually what is going on.

For example, I remember a Dave Barry column where he discussed people with outrageous “comb-over’s”, so that as their male pattern baldness proceeds and the follically challenged area grows, the comb-over begins lower and lower until it becomes what Barry calls a “sideburn from hell”.

In recent times, however, it has become more and more difficult to imagine some situation that is so ridiculous that there is not a special interest group advocating it. What seems to be missing is common sense, which is simply a societal understanding of what is “normal”.

This has been replaced by a generalized sense that there are no absolutes, and that to imply that there are means that somehow you are interfering with someone’s “rights”. In point of fact, it is becoming very difficult to have a conversation with a person you have just met about much of anything but the weather, because since society has been replaced balkanized special interest groups, you risk “offending” your new acquaintance by discussing anything but the most trivial matters.

If, in trying to make small talk with a woman you have just met, you say that you would like to buy her a cup of coffee, you may get lambasted for being sexist and condescending, or you may get pilloried for not seeking out an organic, fair-market brew, or who knows what. So, you just comment on the weather.

In light of this craziness, when we read the stories posted daily about children being abused by their schools for incidents having to do with guns or gun imagery, we tend to relegate it simply to Leftist insanity.

Undoubtedly you are already familiar with some of the most famous incidents, which seemed to grow exponentially in both frequency and absurdity immediately following the Sandy Hook incident.

We have the case of the kindergarten boy who brought a cap gun he had recently acquired onto a school bus to show his friend, who had shown him his water pistol the previous day.

School gestapo interrogated him for over two hours, causing him to wet his pants from fear, then called his parents and suspended him for two weeks for his horrible crime.

But it is not necessary to possess a “gun”, toy or otherwise, to incur the wrath of gun-hating liberal school officials. Perhaps the first of these incidents to come to national attention was the infamous “Pop-Tart” case, where an 8 year-old Baltimore student chewed his pastry into the shape of mountain.

Since it wound up looking more like a gun than a mountain, he said, “bang bang.” Anne Arundel County thought police decided that this was an “inappropriate” use of his imagination and promptly suspended him from school.

In a similarly ludicrous vein, a few weeks ago, a seven-year-old Virginia boy was suspended for pretending a pencil was a gun at his Suffolk school.

It is not, however, necessary to have a toy gun, a pencil, or a Pop-Tart to exceed the bound of liberal propriety. A sixth grader at Northern Middle School in Owings, MD, was talking with friends about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre on the way home from school on the bus.

According to his Dad, “He said, I wish I had a gun to protect everyone. He wanted to defeat the bad guys. That’s the context of what he said. He wanted to be the hero.” The bus driver hauled him back to school to be questioned by the principal, Darrel Prioleau. “The principal told me that with what happened at Sandy Hook if you say the word ‘gun’ in my school you are going to get suspended for 10 days,” the boy said in an interview with WMAL.com.

Worse yet, deputy sheriff of the county was also called in and said “he would need to search their home.”

The deputy arrived at their home 15 minutes later armed with a four-page questionnaire, full of intrusive questions, which the Dad was told he needed to answer in order for the boy to return to school. After the questionnaire was completed, the deputy started to search the home, until the boy’s Dad finally had enough and asked the deputy to leave.

This is unfortunately not the only incident of a child simply talking about a gun that has led to draconian measures by hysterical school officials.

On February 29th, Noah Aguirre, a first-grader at James McGee Elementary School in Pasco, SD, was sent home after another student told their teacher that Noah had a gun with him. In reality, Noah had no gun, but was still was punished for talking with other students about the Nerf guns the family recently bought during a trip to Lincoln City, Ore.

The girl who reported him felt her “health and safety were threatened”. It has been a long time since I was in the first grade, but not long enough to forget how some kids tattle to the teacher to get other kids they do not like in trouble. It would appear that the teacher and officials know very little about the dynamics of interpersonal relations in the first grade.

Since liberals are inherently not very bright, and are sufficiently detached from reality that they are unable to see the abject failure of their various utopian schemes whenever and wherever they have been tried, this sort of idiotic behavior by school personnel doesn’t surprise us.

The tendency is to assume that these incidents are merely aberrations by over-enthusiastic idiots that need to be reined in.

The problem is bigger than that, however. If you looks at these cases as isolated incidents, you will fail to see the forest for the trees. If you connect the dots, a far more alarming picture emerges. Consider “hate speech” legislation;  you can see how far this administration has already gone to abrogate your First Amendment right to free speech.

What is “hate speech” exactly? Well, the legal definition is … that it is up to some judge to decide whether he/she approves of what you said or not. Not only do you no longer have a right to express yourself, you don’t even know whether what you say is “offensive” until someone decides after the fact.

With “hate crime” legislation, we have a new category of crimes based upon what some judge thinks you may have been thinking at the time. So, if you cave in someone’s head with a beer bottle, which is not nearly as bad as if you might have been thinking that you didn’t like the ball team on his jersey when you hit him.

Not only are you no longer allowed to say what you want, you can’t even think it.

Viewed in that light, the anti-gun paranoia playing out in the schools is a very heavy-handed form of liberal bullying. In another context it would be correctly labeled brain washing.

Stories of POW’s brainwashed during the Korean and Vietnamese wars recount how physical and mental techniques included intimidation, deprivation, and reward/punishment to bring prisoners not only to comply but ultimately to identify with their captors.

A lengthy interrogation until the subject loses control of his bladder through fear is a classic example of these techniques. “Zero tolerance” in the schools for any “gun talk”, constant propaganda about how bad guns are, and exaggerated punishment for the slightest infraction are brainwashing techniques that are being used on your children as we speak. Your school may not yet have had an incident that has attracted national attention, but rest assured that the subtle brainwashing is taking place nonetheless.

The best solution to this is to get rid of all the leftists in the school system.

Since that would leave the nation virtually without educators, which might not be a bad thing, the next best solution would be to home-school your children. It is both astounding and instructive to talk to home-schooled kids who have not been exposed to liberal harangues on daily basis and see that they are actually able to think, and that they enjoy shooting as well, by the way.

The third solution is to take your kids to the range. Take your neighbor’s kids, and your kid’s friends if possible. Teach them proper gun use, and let them enjoy their guns. Anyone I have ever taught to shoot, in all my years as an NRA instructor, has absolutely loved the sport.

Those who don’t have usually been introduced to shooting by some idiot who hands them a full-power .44 magnum to learn with instead of a fun .22. Properly introduced to the sport, who doesn’t enjoy shooting reactive targets with a handgun, or shooting clay pigeons with a shotgun? Get the kids away from the computer games and let them see how much more fun the real thing is!

Make no mistake about it, the Left is out to get your guns, and the way they will do it is through your friends, your neighbors, and your children that they have brainwashed. It is up to each and every one of us to make sure that we do not allow this to happen.

UN Small Arms Treaty May Be Signed Under Cover Of Darkness


by

072512_sr_panel_640

Instead of taking the opportunity to sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty on Tuesday, the White House has indicated that Barack Obama will sign it sometime before the end of August. This causes some concern as to what type of event the White House is waiting on to exploit the emotions of Americans to gain support for the measure and put pressure on the Senate to ratify it. Many have suggested that the signature will come under cover of darkness, sometime in August, When Congress will not be in town.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Obama aims to sign the treaty “before the end of August.” Tuesday was the earliest he could have signed it.

“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States,” he said. “While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

The Hill points out,

The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposes the treaty, and the delay would allow Obama to sign the pact during the August doldrums, with Congress out of town.

That time frame appears to validate the concerns of treaty advocates who had worried the administration would wait until the cover of darkness to sign a treaty opposed by a majority of senators.

Rachel Stohl, a senior associate with the Stimson Center, which supports the treaty, said “I think there’s a lot of political hand-wringing going on. They know people are going to be paying attention to this particular issue on this particular day.”

Secretary of State John Kerry released a statement on Monday in which he said the US “welcomes the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty for signature.” He also said that as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily, Obama would be looking forward to signing it.

So there needs to be conforming official translations and that, completed satisfactorily. Sounds similar to being ready to sign something that you have no idea what it really says. Obamacare, anyone? Seems like that is the case on an international scale where the treaty has already passed overwhelmingly.

Kerry went on to state:

“The Treaty is an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights. The Treaty will require the parties to implement strict controls, of the kind the United States already has in place, on the international transfer of conventional arms to prevent their diversion and misuse and create greater international cooperation against black market arms merchants. The ATT will not undermine the legitimate international trade in conventional weapons, interfere with national sovereignty, or infringe on the rights of American citizens, including our Second Amendment rights.

We commend the Presidents of the two UN negotiating conferences – Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina and Peter Woolcott of Australia –for their leadership in bringing this agreement to fruition. We also congratulate all the states that helped achieve an effective, implementable Treaty that will reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes.”

The Secretary of State made no mention of his boss’ current administration providing thousands of weapons to some of the world’s worst criminals to carry out some of the world’s worst crimes which is still ongoing and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least two federal agents.

The Senate has already signed a resolution to not ratify the treaty thanks to the work of men like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Also, 130 members of Congress recently sent a letter to both Obama and Kerry opposing the treaty, writing “We strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms owners, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty.”

The treaty, while be touted by liberals as something that stops guns from falling into the hands of terrorists, is deeply flawed, leaves open the possibility of changes or different interpretations that would only put a stranglehold on the United States. Furthermore, the treaty will have no effect upon governments, such as the Obama administration, that openly and knowingly provide weapons to drug cartels and negotiates support, along with RINOs in the Senate (not mentioning any names here, but at least one’s initials are John McCain (R-AZ)), with enemies of America to arm them.

Ultimately, no matter what we are told by the politicians, it is an attack upon freedom; a freedom we may just have to one day use to stop the growing tyranny.

One other thing to keep in mind. Iran is also one of the countries that the United Nations installed to help police the treaty. Noticeably missing from oversight on the treaty is the United States.

There is not a question of whether Barack Obama will sign the treaty, only when. Timing is key for him and he demonstrated that by putting his support behind the treaty once again within hours of his re-election.

Let’s keep getting the word out that not only should this treaty be opposed, but should be completely removed from the table of consideration so that it cannot be snuck through in a future Congress.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/un-small-arms-treaty-may-be-signed-under-cover-of-darkness/#ixzz2VIFaLTLd

Gun Control Laws: Judge, Jury and Executioner of Rights?


By / 31 May 2013 /http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/05/gun-control-laws-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-rights/

executionerIn reading the article The Fat Lady Hasn’t Sung: Gun Debate Not Over, I was again struck by the idea of our judicial system being at risk via the gun control issue. What I am about to write will cause some consternation, but read it through to the end and then argue with me.

The article states:

A host of logistical problems – including concerns about violating privacy, misunderstandings about which records should be submitted and a lack of money and training – has prevented federal and state agencies from submitting millions of mental health and drug abuse records to the database that’s used for background checks.”

In the U.S. Constitution is the Second Amendment that we are all familiar with. What we sometimes forget to associate with that is, within that Bill of Rights is the following:

“Amendment V”

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [my bolding]“

and

“Amendment VI

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [my bolding]“

The current process of our way of denying someone their Second Amendment rights is in conflict with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In the current system, anyone who has had mental problems of whatever sort has their problem reported to the federal government behind the person’s back, and they have no recourse but to immediately lose their right to bear arms.

Forget the whole idea of it being unconstitutional to testify against oneself — for is that not what mental counseling amounts to? — of the Fifth Amendment. Forget, also, finding any witnesses in your favor, the decision is made without that process and if you wish to appeal it, you may, but it will take a lot of work on your part, and possibly a lot of money as well. Attorneys don’t come cheap.

This affects the third part of the Fifth Amendment that is bolded: the right to “life, liberty, or property without due process of the law”. Liberty and property both include the right to keep and bear arms, do they not?

The Sixth Amendment is trashed by our current gun control laws (A.K.A. people control laws) via the fact that there is no witness against you to confront once you have sought mental help. Ever been diagnosed as ADHD? That’s a mental illness.

You lose your right to a firearm. Where is your witness against you? ‘Tis you. Fifth Amendment: allegedly it prevents you from testifying against yourself, but in talking to a mental health professional, you are testifying against yourself! And it is used against you!

Where is your right to bring a witness in your favor? Shall the psychiatrist who reported you testify for you? Don’t count on that, the psychiatrist is the one who turned you in.

That leads us to the last portion of the Sixth Amendment: the right to “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic]“. When was the last time you heard of anyone being offered a public defender in order to help them get their Second Amendment rights returned to them after they were denied the right to buy a firearm? Has it ever happened? Our Sixth Amendment says that it is supposed to be available. After all, this is happening in a court of law, is it not?

When the law is written in such a way that the law itself becomes our judge, jury and the executioner of our GOD-given rights (for such they are according to our Founding Fathers), then there is a problem with the way the law is written. Gun purchasing laws, as currently constructed, say basically, “IF A, then B and C.” “A” being the mental history, and “B” being your psychiatrist turning you in, and “C” being the loss of your Second Amendment rights.

The law itself has found you guilty of having a mental problem, has therefore removed your Second Amendment right, and you cannot now legally own a gun and are left defenseless in your own home. You cannot defend your life, nor the lives of your wife (or hubby) and children with a gun. You have committed the ultimate sin: you have broken the law of an untarnished mind.

In a nation of  305,528,358 (2008′s number to match the mental health stat) in 2008 approximately 8% of the population who were considered “severely mentally ill”. In 2011 the population was approximately 310,500,000; and 14,612 murders were committed; only 1,000 (6.843%)  committed by those “with untreated severe mental illness“.  That leaves 93.157% of the murders in America committed by those without mental illness.

For the rights of the many to be protected, we must start with the rights of the few. If one person is denied their Fifth Amendment right in a court of law and is forced to testify against himself is that not a declination of the rights of all of us? If they can do it one, they can do it to many.

In America, our justice system is based upon the idea of “Innocent until proven guilty”, apparently we need to add, “Unless you’ve had a mental health issue.”

In Part II of my article, I shall cover some new information from the world of psychiatry and the implications for those affected by the “mental illness” rules of gun control laws.

Mr. President. The Second Amendment is About Fighting Tyranny. Leave it Alone.


Showing Us Who He Really Is

By / http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/04/showing-us-who-he-really-is/

 

mask“How easy it is to abuse truth and language, when men, by habitual wickedness, have learned to set justice at defiance.” — Thomas Paine, “Common Sense on George III’s Speech”, 1782

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” — Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, 1971

As many of us know, the President is one of the most ardent followers of Saul Alinsky. For both, the truth is relative. Consider what the President said earlier this month in his speech in Colorado:

“And so we’ve seen enacted tougher background checks that won’t infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

Conveniently wrong, but truth is relative.

In the same speech he says,

“Over the past 20 years, those background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.”

If that mattered a hill of beans to him why has his administration prosecuted only 44 “of the 15,700 fugitives and felons who tried to illegally purchase a firearm” in 2010 alone?

During the 2008 elections, in a comment about the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, he said that he believes:

“‘[T]hat the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.’”

I’m sorry. If he admits that the “Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms” isn’t the next part of his statement a bit contradictory with the rest of the Second Amendment’? You know, that part that says “shall not be infringed? Either we have the full right, un-infringed or we do not have it at all. It’s not a half and half thing. (And since when did our rights get “conferred” upon us? Those delineated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights come from GOD as the Founding Fathers acknowledged.)

The Founding Fathers, in backing the Second Amendment said things like,

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

That’s Alexander Hamilton, who later added,

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”

Sounds to me more as if the Founding Fathers — and the words they chose — meant for the people to be able to defend themselves against the government! That’s who “the representatives of the people” are: the President, the House and Senate, the Courts and the State and local governments. So the President’s assertions that it “does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right. [my italics]” is not just wrong, it’s in direct opposition to what Alexander Hamilton and other Founders have said!

Now the President is using the Sandy Hook massacre to further his cause via using the parents as backdrops, and one of them taking his place in the weekly radio address (and traveling at our expense to do his bidding). Their grief, difficult as it is to say anything negative about it, is being used to stoke fear into the hearts of the rest of us. It happened to their children. It could happen to ours. Thus, “gun control” must be the answer. We must take the guns away from everyone.

No. They don’t start there. They start with alleged “assault rifles” and high capacity magazines, then they go to other weapons and their ultimate goal: no one will have guns but the government. (Oh, and the people they say can have guns: celebrity body guards, gangsta-rappers; you know. People who need them.)

The President using fear — and, yes, grief — to try to control those who do not know their rights, do not think for themselves, do not do their own investigating of the facts, is (to me) despicable. He’s relying on the least informed, least educated and weakest of us to be able to control the rest of us, pitting one set against the other. Divide and conquer is his forte and he has used it for quite a while now. No, I’m not saying the parents of Sandy Hook are the least informed, etc. I’m saying that the parents’ loss is being used against those who are least informed, etc.

When a President uses tragedies of the Sandy Hook sort to start the process of disarming the people he has an agenda that cannot be good for the people. When he uses a tragedy like Sandy Hook’s parents’ loss as a backdrop and a selling point, he’s selling fear. When he uses fear…

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.” — John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

He tells us who he really is.

Answers More Simple Than Second Amendment Destruction Gun Control Bill


Ann Coulter Letter  http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/10/coulter-liberals-go-crazy-for-the-mentally-ill/

Coulter: Liberals Go Crazy for the Mentally Ill

Coulter: Liberals Go Crazy for the Mentally Ill

Obama has been draping himself in families of the children murdered in Newtown.

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggested that Republican senators need to have a member of their families killed for them to support the Democrats’ gun proposals. (Let’s start with Meghan McCain!)

In a bizarre version of “A Christmas Carol,” CNN’s Carol Costello fantasized about “a mother who lost her child,” showing up and knocking on Sen. Rand Paul’s door, saying, “Please don’t do this!”

The victims of gun violence are the left’s latest “human shields” — a term coined by me in Godless: The Church of Liberalism — for their idiotic ideas. At least it’s not the godawful Jersey Girls this time.

The one clear thread that unites all the mass murders currently being exploited by the Democrats is that they were committed by visibly crazy people who were unaccountably not institutionalized. But Democrats refuse to do anything about crazy people. Apparently, the views of families with relatives murdered by severely disturbed individuals are no longer relevant when it comes to institutionalizing the mentally ill.

If liberals had a decent argument for taking guns away from the law-abiding while doing nothing to prevent schizophrenics from getting guns, they’d make it. Manifestly, they don’t, so they send out victims to make the argument for them, knowing no one will argue with a person whose child has just been murdered.

This allows liberals to act as if Republicans’ only counter-argument to their idiotic gun control proposals is: We don’t mind dead children.

The truth is the opposite. Republicans are pushing policies that will reduce gun violence; Democrats are pushing policies that will increase gun violence.All the actual evidence — mountains of it, in peer-reviewed studies by highly respected economists and criminologists and endlessly retested — shows that limits on magazine capacity, background checks and assault weapons bans will accomplish nothing. Only one policy has been shown to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings: concealed-carry laws.

Unfortunately, there are no similar studies on the effect of involuntary commitment laws for the mentally deranged because no such laws exist anymore and therefore can’t be tested. But we do know that the number of mass public shootings has ballooned since crazy people were thrown out of mental institutions in the 1970s.

For most of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1970, there was an average of four mass public shootings per decade. Throughout the ’70s, as the loony bins were being emptied, the average number of mass shootings suddenly shot up to 13. In the 3.3 decades since 1980, after all the mental institutions had been turned into condos, mass shootings skyrocketed to 36 on average per decade.

Mass shootings don’t correlate with gun ownership; they correlate with not locking up schizophrenics.

Mental illness was blindingly clear in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, who committed mass murder at Virginia Tech. Jared Loughner showed signs of schizophrenia for at least five years before he shot up the Tucson shopping mall. James Holmes was being treated for mental illness long before his massacre at the Aurora movie theater. It was clear to Adam Lanza’s mother — nearly the only person who had contact with him — that he was mentally disturbed and had violent fantasies. (Three-quarters of matricides are committed by the mentally ill.)

We can add paranoid schizophrenic One L. Goh, who committed a mass murder at a Christian college in California last year, and the Muslim Army major, Nidal Hasan, known to be crazier than an MSNBC host, who killed 13 and injured 30 in a “gun-free” area of the Fort Hood Army base a couple years ago. For hundreds more examples of the mentally ill committing murder, read E. Fuller Torrey’s book, The Insanity Offense: How America’s Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens.

But Democrats simply will not address the one thing that is screaming out from all of these mass murders, which is that they were committed by crazy people.

As soon as the issue of mental illness came up at a Senate hearing on gun violence in January, Sen. Al Franken leapt in to say: “I want to be careful here — that we don’t stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population.”

Liberals at ThinkProgress.org and The Huffington Post hailed Franken for his sensitivity. Can we check with the families of the children murdered by crazy people on the danger of “stigmatizing” the mentally ill?

Contrary to Franken’s claim, some of the mentally ill are far more likely to be violent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, schizophrenics and similarly disturbed individuals are three times more likely to commit a violent crime than others.

The mentally ill are also more likely to be the victims of violence. Ask the sisters of the crazy homeless woman “Billie Boggs” how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs out on the street.

Meanwhile, the only target of Democrats’ gun proposals — legal gun owners — are less likely to commit violent crimes than others. To the contrary, armed civilians justifiably kill about 1,500-2,800 felons a year, compared to 300-600 legal killings by the police. Responsible armed citizens protecting us from violent criminals should be subsidized rather than taxed and harassed.

After five mass shootings by deranged lunatics, even liberals know that the only policy — apart from concealed-carry laws — that might have stopped these shootings are laws permitting the institutionalization of the mentally ill.

That’s why they keep claiming their gun bills address mental illness. Warning: Read the bill. You will find nothing in any of the Democrats’ “gun safety” proposals that will make it easier to commit a crazy person or to prevent him from buying a gun.

The Democrats’ argument for doing absolutely nothing about the dangerously mentally ill, while disarming crime-preventing armed citizens is: Tell it to this weeping mother. If the Democrats’ “gun safety” bill passes, there’ll be plenty more weeping mothers to tell it to.

 

“You Don’t Know What Freedom Is!”


Communism Survivor Blasts Gun Control: “You Don’t Know What Freedom Is!” Communism Survivor Blasts Gun Control: “You Don’t Know What Freedom Is!”

Here is evidence of What Homeland Security is Doing with All Those Military Vehicles and Ammo


Police Militarization, Abuses of Power, and the Road to Impeachment

 

These are trying times. Never in the history of this country have we been so weakened and polarized by what many view as deliberate government policy. Now anti-gunners in the U.S. Congress, the Obama administration, and legislatures across the country are seeking to exploit the Newtown tragedy to promote their “gun control” agenda that envisions federal, universal background checks on gun purchases, and that could lead to gun registration and confiscation.

At the same time, the increasing militarization of law enforcement, most visibly demonstrated by the growing use of massive, SWAT-type raids on businesses and individuals, sometimes with federal involvement or authorization, is heightening concerns that this country is moving toward a police state.

Mountain Pure SWAT Raid: The Movie

Mountain Pure Water, LLC is headquartered on Interstate 30 just outside the town of Little Rock, Arkansas. The company manufactures and distributes beverage containers, spring water, fruit drinks, and teas. In January 2012, about 50 federal agents, led by Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Special Agent Cynthia Roberts and IRS Special Agent Bobbi Spradlin, swooped in, guns drawn. Without explanation they shut down plant operations, herded employees into the cafeteria, and confined them to the room for hours. They could not so much as use the bathroom without police escort. Cell phones were confiscated and all Internet and company phones were disabled.

Plant Manager Court Stacks was at his desk when police burst through his office door, guns drawn and pointed at him—a thoroughly unprofessional violation of basic firearms discipline in this circumstance, and the cause of numerous accidental SWAT killings.

storm damaged barnAccording to Mountain Pure CEO John Stacks, the search warrant was related to questions about an SBA loan he secured through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to recover tornado losses to his home, warehouse, and associated equipment. Mr. Stacks says the SBA apparently doesn’t believe that assets listed as damaged in the storm were actually damaged.

The search warrant was extremely vague and some agents’ actions may have been illegal, according to company attorney, Timothy Dudley. Comptroller Jerry Miller was taken to a private room and interrogated for over three hours by SBA Special Agent Cynthia Roberts, the raid leader. He requested an attorney and was told “That ain’t gonna happen.” According to Miller, the SBA unilaterally changed the terms of Stacks’ loan. He says he asked Roberts what gave the SBA authority to do that, and she responded, “We’re the federal government, we can do what we want, when we want, and there is nothing you can do about it.” Miller said during the raid Roberts “strutted around the place like she was Napoleon.”

Stacks said the company has had three IRS audits in the past three years, including one following the raid, with no problems. The SBA has still not filed any charges, continues to stonewall about the raid’s purpose, and refuses to release most of the property seized during the raid.

Quality Assurance Director Katy Depriest, who doubles as the company crisis manager, described agents’ “Gestapo tactics.” She added that they confiscated CDs of college course work and educational materials for a class she had been taking that resulted in her flunking the course. Those materials have not yet been returned.

Attempts were made to contact Ms. Roberts for this article, but she is no longer employed by the SBA. Questions were directed to the Little Rock, Arkansas U.S. Attorney’s office. The USA’s public affairs officer had no comment; however they have convened a grand jury to evaluate the case.

Because law enforcement refused repeated requests to respond for this article, we have only Mountain Pure’s side of the story, but they make a compelling case:

  • Many company employees were willing to discuss this raid on the record.
  • Mountain Pure and several employees have sued Special Agents Roberts and Spradlin.
  • Mr. Stacks commissioned a video about the raid, reproduced here.

The video includes testimony from Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of famed Gibson Guitar Corp., which suffered two such raids, and another raid target, Duncan Outdoors Inc. The video does not attempt to establish anyone’s guilt or innocence, but rather highlights law enforcement’s heavy-handed tactics in executing SWAT-style search warrants against legitimate businesses. Gibson has settled with the Justice Department in a case fraught with legal ambiguities, while Duncan has been indicted for violations of currency transaction reporting requirements.

Mr. Stacks claims he has gotten calls from many companies that have suffered similar raids, but they are afraid to speak out. Here are a few examples that have made national news:

  • FDA officials, U.S. Marshals, and the Pennsylvania State Police raided an Amish farm in 2011 for selling raw milk.
  • A Department of Education SWAT team raided a man’s home, “dragged him out in his boxer shorts, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him” in front of his three young children. They were looking for evidence of his estranged wife’s financial aid fraud.
  • 66 year-old George Norris spent two years in jail following a USFWS raid that nailed him for filing incorrect forms on imported orchids.
  • A Fairfax, Virginia optometrist being served a warrant for illegal gambling was killed by a SWAT team member whose firearm accidentally discharged. He answered the door in his bathrobe, unarmed and unaware that he was even under investigation.

War on Small Business?

In 2006, the IRS announced it would shift its focus to audit more small businesses. IRS data on tax audits seems to bear this out. Between the first and second half of the last decade, the audit coverage rate on businesses with assets between $10 and $50 million increased by 42 percent. Between 2001 and 2005 an annual average of 13,549 returns were audited for businesses with assets less than $10 million. Between 2006 and 2011, the average was 19,289, an increase of over 42 percent (pdf).

This has paid off in increased enforcement revenues, but are massive SWAT raids an essential part of this new strategy? In addition to the potential dangers and the outrage of having company employees treated like drug dealers or terrorists, the cost of these raids is staggering. Agents told Mountain Pure employees they had flown in from all over the country.

The Sharpsburg Raid

Sharpsburg, Maryland, population 706, is a quiet little town bordering the Antietam National Battlefield in rural Washington County. On Thursday, November 29, 2012 at about 12:30 pm, the quiet was shattered by an invasion of over 150 Maryland State Police (MSP), FBI, State Fire Marshal’s bomb squad, and County SWAT teams, complete with two police helicopters, two Bearcat “special response” vehicles, mobile command posts, snipers, police dogs, bomb disposal truck, bomb sniffing robots, and a huge excavator. They even brought in food trucks.

A heavily armed MSP Special Tactical Assault Team Element (STATE) executed a no-knock search warrant, smashing through the reportedly unlocked door with a battering ram. They worked until after 7:30 p.m., ransacking a modest, 20 ft. by 60 ft. single-family home for weapons, and searching for its owner, one Terry Porter. For hours, neighbors were left worrying and wondering, while countless police blanketed the area.

Local resident Tim Franquist described the scene:

“The event, or siege as we are calling it, involved convoys of police speeding to the area, two helicopters, armored vehicles, command centers, countless police cruisers and officers. They blocked off the roads and commandeered a campground as their staging area.”

Terry Porter is married with three children, has lived in the town all of his life, and owns a modest welding business. He is also a prepper. His preparations include an underground bunker, buried food supplies, and surveillance cameras. Porter really doesn’t like Obama, and tells anyone who will listen.

Unfortunately, one listener was an undercover officer for the MSP. The police had become interested in Porter through an anonymous caller who claimed that Porter “had been getting crazier and crazier…” and that he had “10 to 15 machine gun-style weapons, six handguns and up to 10,000 rounds of ammunition…” The MSP performed a background check and discovered Porter had a 20-year-old charge for aiding marijuana distribution, a disqualification for firearms ownership.

MSP detailed an officer to visit Porter’s shop on November 16th posing as a customer. The officer said Porter “openly admitted to being a prepper.” Not a crime. Porter also allegedly claimed to have a Saiga shotgun, and was willing to use it “when people show up unannounced.” Based on the Russian AK-47 design, some Saiga variants are fully automatic. On November 27th MSP obtained a search warrant.

Two days later they appeared at Porter’s door but could not find him. Porter later disclosed he “left out the back door.” Where he went has not been disclosed. However, local blogger Ann Corcoran, who lives nearby and followed the issue closely, claims he hid out in fear for his life. Given highly publicized, accidental shootings involving SWAT teams and the overwhelming force present, that’s a reasonable assumption.

The following day Porter turned himself in and took the police through his property. The raid produced a total of four shotguns, a 30-30-caliber hunting rifle and two .22-caliber rifles. He was charged with firearms possession violations and released on a $75,000 bond.

The raid was one of the largest in recent U.S. history, twice the size of the 1993 Branch Davidian raid in Waco, Texas, which initially involved 76 ATF agents. It almost rivaled the recent 200-strong statewide manhunt for California cop-killing cop, Christopher Dorner. Yet only a few local stories emerged and those presented a hysterical portrait of Porter while largely underreporting the police presence.

Why the Raid?

The MSP did not notify town officials or Washington County Sheriff Douglas Mullendore, who learned of the raid after it began, when they requested the use of his SWAT Team and Bearcat. The MSP also set up a command center at a campground within the national park without notifying the Park Police. Bills have since been introduced in the Maryland legislature by Washington County Delegate Neil Parrott (HB 0219) and State Senator Chris Shank (SB 0259) to require notification of local law enforcement before any outside agency serves a warrant.

A meeting following the raid attracted 60 concerned Sharpsburg citizens and leaders. Sharpsburg Vice Mayor Bryan Gabriel characterized the raid as “overwhelming,” and said it “could have put a lot of people at risk.” Erin Moshier, a citizen who attended the meeting added, “We all felt there was excessive force involved, and we felt that a member of our community was victimized and we wanted to get to the bottom of it and get some answers.” Both Gabriel and Sheriff Mullendore have issued statements of support for Porter, who they know personally. Citizens created a “Friends for Terry” website to help with his legal costs.

When asked why the police did not simply detain Porter in town or at a traffic stop, MSP Hagerstown Barracks Commander, Lt. Thomas Woodward said the police only had a property search warrant and had no authority to arrest Porter. However police do have authority to “detain the property owner for 24 hours” when executing a search warrant, so Porter could have been intercepted elsewhere, but they chose to execute that authority as part of the raid.

Lt. Woodward said that the state police have a good working relationship with Sheriff Mullendore. If that is the case, why didn’t they consult the sheriff first? If Porter were really that dangerous wouldn’t it be helpful to get more information from a trusted source better acquainted with him? Mullendore said they usually do give notice. Reportedly several state police who personally know Porter reside in Sharpsburg. Why were they not consulted?

Does the MSP detail SWAT automatically for gun search warrants? Some other police forces do. For example, in one fatal Florida SWAT shooting, a 21-man SWAT team was called in merely because the target had a concealed-carry permit. Are SWAT raids to become the order of the day for gun owners?

If Mr. Porter is indeed adjudicated a felon in possession of firearms, then he was in violation of the law. He didn’t help his case by bragging to the undercover officer about his doomsday preparations, especially the Saiga—which turned out to be nonexistent.

There is nothing wrong with being prepared, or even describing the actions you might take in a hypothetical “doomsday” situation, but in fairness to police, with all the lunatics coming out of the woodwork these days, and the heightened atmosphere of mutual distrust between law enforcement and citizens, the MSP might be excused for presuming the worst. But 150 police?

Recent events such as the kidnapping/bunker standoff in Alabama, and cop-killer Dorner, provide apt examples. Police never know what to expect. Still, in this case at least, it seems a little more investigation and consultation with local authorities could have resolved this issue quietly and with much less risk and cost.

Cost of the Operation

Neither the FBI nor the MSP have publicly disclosed how many of their officers were involved in the raid. However, Senator Shank and Delegate Parrott were told in a meeting with top MSP officials that the total, including federal, state, and local police, exceeded 150. From public information requests we know that the Washington County Special Response Team (SRT) sent 17, including four snipers, two medics, and their Bearcat driver. Only two of these actually participated, the driver and a sniper who accompanied him.

The FBI personnel were training nearby and when their assistance was requested, many, if not all, chose to participate. A witness on the scene guessed there were approximately 40 officers at the campground where the FBI staged. If we assume a total of 150, that would leave 93 MSP. The following table, based on police salaries gleaned from public sources provides a rough estimate of the personnel cost for this operation.

sharpsburg raid cost table

The MSP argued that only variable costs—those directly related to the operation—are relevant. By this logic, the operation cost very little, as salaries and other fixed costs are incurred anyway. But the personnel and resources involved would otherwise have been engaged elsewhere: tracking down criminals, enforcing other laws, and assisting in emergencies. There are clearly other, potentially more beneficial activities they could not simultaneously perform. This is called opportunity cost and must be considered.

This raid cost approximately $11,000 per hour, which dramatically illustrates one reason government spending is so wildly out of control. If agency managers considered the true cost of their decisions, they might work harder to prioritize their activities and not waste valuable resources on errands of questionable value.

High visibility events like the Sharpsburg raid present a one-sided picture of police as out-of-control, wasting time on seeming trifles. But their daily efforts, which go largely unreported, paint a much more balanced picture. For example, the MSP Gang Enforcement Unit has aggressively investigated violent street gangs, one of the largest sources of gun violence.

Between 2010 and 2012 alone, the Gang Unit made 621 gang arrests and seized 94 firearms. This does not include their extensive work with multi-agency task forces. Here, they have participated in successful operations against such violent gangs as the Crips & Bloods, Wise Guyz, B-6, the Black Guerrilla Family, Juggalos, the Dead Man Incorporated crime syndicate, and others, and have brought many of these offenders to justice.

Militarization of Police

crime down but police militarizeThe SWAT concept was popularized by Los Angeles Police Chief Darryl Gates in the late 1960s in response to large-scale incidents for which the police were ill-prepared. But the use of SWAT teams has since exploded. Massive SWAT raids using military-style equipment are becoming routine methods for executing search warrants. One study estimates 40,000 such raids per year nationwide:

“These increasingly frequent raids… are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.”

John W. Whitehead writes in the Huffington Post, that “it appears to have less to do with increases in violent crime and more to do with law enforcement bureaucracy and a police state mentality.”

The ACLU recently announced its intention to investigate the militarization of law enforcement. Ironically, despite the perception of heightened gun violence due to incidents like Newtown, ACLU points out that both crime rates and law enforcement gun deaths have been declining for decades (see chart).

Yet police forces are becoming increasingly militarized due to huge subsidies provided by the federal government:

“Through its little-known “1033 program,” the Department of Defense gave away nearly $500 million worth of leftover military gear to law enforcement in fiscal year 2011… The surplus equipment includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles and armored vehicles… Orders in fiscal year 2012 are up 400 percent over the same period in 2011…”

Congress created this provision in 1997 for drug and anti-terrorism efforts. It has since provided over 17,000 agencies $2.6 billion worth of equipment at no charge. One local agency now owns an amphibious tank, while another obtained a machine-gun-equipped APC.

governor omalley bearcatAdditionally, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants have allowed state and local agencies nationwide to purchase Bearcats. These 16,000 pound vehicles are bulletproof and can be equipped with all kinds of extra features.

Ironically, while SWAT teams probably got their biggest boost initially from conservatives, many fear law enforcement is becoming a tool to enforce leftist ideology. University criminal justice programs turn out graduates indoctrinated in liberal theology, which carries into modern law enforcement bureaucratic culture.

Today this trend is reflected in reports coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, the military, and various law enforcement “fusion” centers, that identify gun-owners, patriots, ex-military, Christians, pro-life activists, and tea party members as “potential domestic terrorists (pdf).”

The perpetrator of last summer’s attempted mass shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters now admits he was prompted by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Watch” list. The radical leftist SPLC is now “consulting” with the FBI and DHS regarding “rightwing hate groups.” The group labeled AIM’s Cliff Kincaid a member of a sinister group of “Patriots” for writing critically of the United Nations, President Obama, and the homosexual lobby, among other things. Ironically, the SPLC “Teaching tolerance” project ran an article praising unrepentant Communist terrorist bomber Bill Ayers as a “civil rights organizer, radical anti-Vietnam War activist, teacher, and author,” with an “editor’s note” going so far as to say that Ayers “has become a highly respected figure in the field of multicultural education.”

Ammo, Military Equipment and Domestic Drone Use

The Internet is abuzz with news that the Department of Homeland Security is purchasing over 1.6 billion rounds of pistol and rifle ammunition, 2,700 Mine Resistant Armored Vehicles (MRAP), and 7,000 fully-automatic “personal defense weapons.” Some of this is worthy of concern, some maybe not so much. Meanwhile, the expanded use of aerial drones within the continental U.S. has created anxiety among the public and political leaders alike.

Ammo

Reportedly, the order for 1.6 billion rounds of pistol and rifle ammunition would fulfill DHS requirements for the next five years, or 320 million rounds per year. DHS has 55,471 employees authorized to carry firearms, which comes to about 5,800 rounds per year, per employee. For perspective, during the first year of the war on terror, approximately 72 million rounds were expended in Iraq and another 21 million in Afghanistan by an estimated 45,000 combat troops. This amounts to about 2,000 rounds per war fighter.

Yet the requisition may not be unreasonable. The largest order, 750 million rounds, came from DHS’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) for training. FLETC Public Affairs Director Peggy Dixon said that the purchase request was “a ceiling. It does not mean that we will buy, or require, the full amounts of either contract.” Another 650 million rounds are being purchased by Inspections and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to cover the next five years.

Since these are maximum figures, it is difficult to conclusively evaluate the purchase. Some have asserted that the practical effect—if not the deliberate intent—is to dry up the private market for ammunition. Congressmen are now demanding answers from DHS regarding these purchases. But most ammunition shortages are likely due to civilian demands. Obama and the Democrats’ palpable hostility to gun owners has caused ammunition and firearms purchases to skyrocket.

There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. If each just purchased 100 rounds of ammo—enough for one afternoon at the range—that would equal 8-billion rounds. Many are purchasing significantly more.

Instead of asking why DHS needs 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, the real question we should be asking is, “Why does DHS need 55,000 law enforcement officers?”

MRAPs & Submachine Guns

The original story regarding a purchase of 2,700 MRAPs s was in error. The confusion centers on a 2011 order from the U.S. Marines to retrofit 2,717 of its MRAPs with upgraded chassis.

DHS has been using MRAPs since 2008 and currently has a fleet of 16 received from the Army at no cost. They are used by DHS special response teams in executing “high-risk warrants.”

Similarly, the purchase of 7,000 “Personal Defense Weapons” is not extraordinary for an agency of this size.

Drones

DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) has been operating Predator drones since 2005, with a current fleet of nine. Some in Congress seek to expand their use. In February of 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which includes a provision for commercial drone regulations. The FAA projects that up to 30,000 drones could be flying by 2020. A requisition memo describes these requirements for drones operated by CBP against border incursions by frequently armed drug traffickers and coyotes, but concern exists that this use will extend to U.S. citizens inside the border.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director, in order to obtain answers about lethal drone use against American citizens within the U.S. Holder finally sent Paul a letter, which said:

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

Paul said they had been asking Holder for about six weeks. But Holder didn’t answer the question at all. Paul did not specify Americans “engaged in combat on American soil.” He asked about attacks against any Americans on U.S. soil. Holder had said in earlier testimony that the President did have the authority to kill Americans on American soil in certain circumstances.

Given the Obama administration’s contempt for the Constitution and its broad definition of “domestic terrorists” to include pretty much anyone they don’t like, there is cause for genuine concern.

Gun Control 

The Sharpsburg raid occurred prior to the Newtown tragedy, but nonetheless reinforced the widespread impression that MSP is an anti-gun organization. Did the MSP decide to make an example of Porter to send a message to Maryland gun owners, or were they genuinely afraid that Porter was about to go postal? That question is unclear, but a Maryland law enforcement source who has attended briefings on the subject said that state police are “gearing up for confiscation.”

In 1989 Patrick O’Carroll of the Centers for Disease Control, stated:

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities” (emphasis added).

The CDC further revealed its strategy in 1994:

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention. Washington Post, 1994 (emphasis added).

Do these themes sound familiar? They represent a single component of a vast effort by media, politicians, Hollywood, educational institutions, and professionals to vilify gun ownership. One left-wing organization, Third Way, created a “messaging strategy,” encouraging the term “gun safety” because “gun control has become a loaded term that leads voters to believe that the candidate supports the most restrictive laws.”

Since Newtown, however, the anti-gunners have pretty much dropped any pretense. Here is a small sampling of recent anti-gun lunacy:

  • Florida Democratic state Senator Audrey Gibson has proposed a bill requiring anger management classes for would-be ammo purchasers.
  • Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak told a rape victim testifying against gun control that having a gun was a waste of time as the rapist would have killed her with it.
  • A Democrat activist says we should train rapists not to rape, rather than using guns to stop them.
  • A Baltimore, MD seven-year old was suspended from school for two days for biting a pastry into a shape that looked like a gun.
  • A five-year old was suspended from school and branded a “terrorist threat” for telling a classmate she was going to shoot her with her Princess “bubble gun.”
  • A Philadelphia 5th grader was called “murderer” by classmates and yelled at by her teacher for having a piece of paper cut into a shape that looked vaguely like a pistol.
  • A New Jersey family was visited by police and the Department of Youth and Family Services because of a photo of their 11-year-old son posing with a rifle.

In an unguarded moment recently, U.S. Rep Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) revealed the Democratic intentions:

“We want everything on the table…This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the—you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Conclusion

The increased militarization of police forces and the associated use of SWAT teams for routine law enforcement are a dangerous trend. Given Obama’s seeming willingness to abuse the power of his office on so many fronts, it is reasonable to expect more, not less, of the kind of abusive police overreach described in this report, while police forces and capabilities will continue to grow.

Obama’s obvious hostility to gun owners is fueling legitimate fears of gun confiscation, furthering an atmosphere of mutual distrust and paranoia between police and civilians. This raises the specter of armed confrontations should there be attempts to confiscate firearms. As one law enforcement official said at a recent gun hearing, “Good people are going to die trying to take these guns and good people are going to die trying to keep them.”

Ironically, despite its professed commitment to stopping “gun violence,” the Obama Administration authorized gun-running to Mexican drug cartels and Jihadists in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. Some hearings and investigations have been held into these schemes but there has been little accountability for this “gun violence.”

At an AIM conference before the 2012 presidential election, impeachment proceedings against President Obama were discussed. Citing his experience with the Clinton impeachment, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), then-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, talked about hearings held by his committee featuring constitutional experts who said “no other administration has ignored laws like this administration…” In regard to impeachment, however, he said that the standard was extremely high, and the process long and involved. He concluded, “I really think the better answer is to turn the attention to the American people and saying, ‘If you feel that strongly about the President, one way to register that discontent is to vote for the other person.’”

In the end, of course, Obama won re-election, and the abuses continue. However, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), has suggested impeachment may be an option if the President continues to govern through unilateral executive orders and attempts to impose his anti-Second Amendment agenda through such measures.

 

History’s a great teacher


Most People Don’t Know Much About Second Amendment History

The first line to Sam Cookes’ song “Wonderful World” goes like this: “Don’t Know Much about history.” And that’s the way liberals want to keep most of the nation. History’s a great teacher, but too many of us found it boring. But it comes in handy when we’re trying to protect our freedoms.

Knowing some history about what our founders thought about what it means to “bear arms” can go a long way to shut the mouth of someone who does not know much about history.

In 1999, Texas U.S. District Judge, Sam Cummings ruled in a domestic abuse case that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms.

There was naturally blowback from this decision. His detractors claimed he neglected to follow usual judicial practice. You see, his sin was not citing legal precedent to support his decision.

That one sentence clearly defines a major problem in this country, run by pinhead lawyers — so full of arrogance that they think themselves and their court decisions superior to the Constitution and the founders. By citing only court precedent instead of original intent one bad decision leads to another and so on.

Some legal pinheads might cite the Supreme Court case U.S. v Miller (1939) wherein the court ruled the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose . . . was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state militia.” In the early 1980s, the Illinois Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was no right for individuals to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.

I’m no constitutional scholar or great jurist with an army of researchers, but I can read.

So did the framers intend the Second Amendment to encompass an individual’s right to carry guns for self-protection? It turns out they, the founders, had plenty to say on the subject.

The first state Declaration of Rights to use the term “bear arms” was Pennsylvania in 1776: “that the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.” Pretty clear. No ambiguity there.

Noah Webster of dictionary fame was certainly in a position to know what the Second Amendment phrase “bear arms” meant. A prominent Federalist, he wrote the first major pamphlet in support of the Constitution when it was proposed in 1787, in which he stated:

“[B]efore a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”

Again, pretty straightforward, but one might expect that of a wordsmith.

In fact, in Webster’s famous dictionary, first published in 1828, “bear” is defined as “To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.”

Continuing to the word “arms,” we find this definition: “weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.” So according to Webster, “bear arms” is to carry or wear weapons openly or concealed. Further, Webster defines “pistol” as a “small firearm, or smallest firearm used… small pistols are carried in the pocket.”

I bet most Americans don’t know this much about gun history in America.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/04/most-people-dont-know-much-about-second-amendment-history/#ixzz2PXMZEhiC

The kids are the founders, and “it” is massive gun control.


Obama: Government Tyranny Impossible Because ‘Government Is Us’

In his big pitch in Colorado on Wednesday for further gun control, President Obama made an astonishing statement about gun rights advocates’ fears of governmental gun seizures. He said that such worries would just feed “into fears about government. You hear some of these folks: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government. We can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ The government’s us. These officials are elected by you … I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place.”

There are two odd angles to this statement. The first is Obama’s overarching theme: government violation of rights is impossible because “the government is us,” and we can’t violate our own rights. Were this true, we could do away with the Constitution altogether. We would also never have to worry about democracies turning tyrannical, or electing tyrannical rulers. In this odd vision, Germany, Italy, and Spain remained liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century, World War II never happened, and Egypt, the Gaza Strip, and Turkey are all thriving centers of freedom.

The government is most assuredly not us – at least not all of us – which is why our system of government is designed to protect the rights of minorities while still allowing majorities to legislate without violating those rights. Obama’s defense to charges of incipient tyranny is that tyranny can never happen here. Which, of course, makes it more likely that tyranny will happen here.

Truth be told, even Obama does not believe that the “government is us.” If he did, he would never worry about pro-life legislation (he does, and would challenge such legislation in court), heterosexual marriage legislation (he does, and challenges such legislation in court), or anti-Obamacare legislation at the state level (he does, and will likely challenge such legislation in court). Even in Obama’s vision of rights, populism is limited, although his vision of rights is skewed.

The second odd angle is Obama’s insistence that the Constitution constrains him. The natural inference seems to be that if it were not for the Constitution, Obama would indeed pursue a federal gun seizure. Like the villain at the end of every Scooby Doo cartoon, Obama’s offhand protest suggests that if it weren’t for those darn kids, he would have gotten away with it. Except that the kids are the founders, and “it” is massive gun control.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

15 Year Old Girl Leaves Anti-Gun Politicians Speechless


15 Year Old Girl Leaves Anti-Gun Politicians Speechless 15 Year Old Girl Leaves Anti-Gun Politicians Speechless

This fifteen year old absolutely gets it!

She crushes the logic of anti gun politicians in the Maryland state legislature.

If only our politicians were as smart as this fifteen year old girl we might actually be taking steps to reduce violence that DON’T include attacking inanimate objects.

She points out the fallacy of strict gun control by using the model of modern gun control, Chicago, as an example of what happens when you disarm the general populace, leaving them at the hands of criminals and gang members.

United Nations Passes Gun Control. Registration ALWAYS Leads to Confiscation.


Gun rights advocates fear U.N. treaty will lead to U.S. registry

** FILE ** The United Nations building is reflected on the window of the U.S. mission to the U.N. as portraits of American President Barack Obama, left, Vice President Joseph R. Biden, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hang in the lobby, Saturday, Sept. 18, 2010, in New York. (Associated Press)

The U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday approved a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty aimed at regulating the estimated $60 billion international arms trade, brushing aside gun rights groups’ concerns that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry in the U.S.

The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons.


SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control


The treaty also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes or international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries where they could be used for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

“This is a good day for the United Nations, and a good day for the peoples of the world,” said Australian Ambassador Peter Woolcott, the lead negotiator during the process.

With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 155-3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against the proposal.

U.S. gun rights activists say the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. The activists said they do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

One provision requires participating countries to keep records of arms exports and imports, including the quantity, value, model/type, and “end users, as appropriate” for at least 10 years.

Gun record-keeping is a thorny issue in the U.S., where similar questions have stalled a debate over expanding background checks to include all private gun sales.


SEE RELATED: Texas AG to Obama: I’ll sue if U.N. Arms Treaty is ratified


Second Amendment supporters worry that such records eventually will pave the way for a national firearms registry, currently prohibited by federal law.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying he would sue to block the treaty if it is ratified. It “appears to lay the groundwork for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the UN,” the letter said.

The Senate last month also signaled its aversion, voting 53-46 to oppose the treaty in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate. Eight Democrats joined all 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.

Sen. Jerry Moran, Kansas Republican, said Tuesday that it made no sense to pass a treaty that will bind the U.S., while Iran, Syria and North Korea will ignore it.

“The U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arm terrorists, but there is real concern that the administration feels pressured to sign a treaty that violates our constitutional rights,” Mr. Moran said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with the outcome, but “as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty.”

Amnesty International and the Arms Control Association hailed the U.N. vote.

Under the treaty, countries must consider whether weapons would be used to violate international humanitarian or human rights laws and facilitate acts of terrorism or organized crime.

“The treaty’s prohibition section, if it were in force today, would prohibit the ongoing supply of weapons and parts and components to the Assad regime in Syria,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the ACA, a national group that works on arms-control policies.

The American Bar Association released a white paper arguing that the treaty would not affect Second Amendment rights.

The U.N. vote clears the way for countries to add their signatures to the treaty starting June 3. The treaty will take effect 90 days after 50 nations sign it.

Within one year of signing on, each country must submit a report outlining the steps it has taken to comply. But more specifics on the implementation, enforcement and possible punishment for violations of the treaty remain to be seen. Countries have the right to withdraw from the treaty, but are not, as a result, excused from obligations they had while participating.

“This is a very good framework, I think, to build on — it’s fair, I think it’s balanced, and it’s strong. But it’s only a framework,” Mr. Woolcott said. “And it’ll only be as good as its implementation.”

More rule-making is to be delegated to a conference of participating countries, to convene within one year after the treaty goes into effect to review its implementation and consider amendments.

Proponents hoped that the treaty could be ratified by acclamation at a final negotiating conference last week, but Syria, Iran and North Korea objected.

Some abstaining countries, including India and Egypt, said the treaty did not go far enough on its language regarding terrorism or human rights.

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC.

Coulter: The Left’s Continuing War on Women


Coulter: The Left's Continuing War on Women

By: Ann Coulter
3/27/2013 09:00 PM

RESIZE: AAA

Print147

The New York Times caused a sensation with its kazillion-word, March 17 article by Michael Luo on the failures of state courts to get guns out of the hands of men in domestic violence situations.

The main purpose of the article was to tweak America’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association, for opposing some of the more rash anti-gun proposals being considered by state legislatures, such as allowing courts to take away a person’s firearms on the basis of a temporary restraining order.

It’s a new position for liberals to oppose the rights of the accused. Usually the Times is demanding that even convicted criminals be given voting rights, light sentences, sex-change operations and vegan meals in prison.

Another recent Times article about communities trying to keep sex offenders out of their neighborhoods quoted a liberal saying: “It’s counterproductive to public safety, because when you have nothing to lose, you are much more likely to commit a crime than when you are rebuilding your life.”

But that was about convicted child molesters. This is about guns, so all new rules apply.

As is usually the case when liberals start proposing gun restrictions, they assume only men will be disarmed by laws taking guns from those subjected to temporary restraining orders. But such orders aren’t particularly difficult to get. It doesn’t occur to liberals that an abusive man could also get one against his wife, whether or not his accusations are true.

Rather than helping victims of domestic abuse, this — and other Times’ proposals on guns — only ensures that more women will get killed. A gun in the hand of an abused woman changes the power dynamic far more than keeping a gun out of the hands of her abuser, who generally can murder his wife in any number of ways.

The vast majority of rapists, for example, don’t even bother using a gun because — as renowned criminologist Gary Kleck notes — they typically have a “substantial power advantage over the victim,” making the use of a weapon redundant.

As the Times eventually admits around paragraph 400: “In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order (taking guns from the accused wife abuser) would have prevented the deaths.”

No kidding. In one case the Times cites, Robert Wigg ripped a door off its hinges and heaved it at his wife, Deborah, after having thrown her to the floor by her hair.

Deborah Wigg moved out, got a protective order and filed for divorce. But doors were not an impediment to Robert Wigg. He showed up at her new house and, in short order, broke down the door and murdered her.

He happened to have used a gun, but he might as well have used his fists. Or an illegal gun, had the court taken away his legal guns. Or another door.

As her husband was breaking in, Deborah called her parents and 911. Her neighbors called 911, too. But the police didn’t arrive in time. Even her parents got to the house before the cops did, only to find their daughter murdered.

The protective order didn’t help Deborah Wigg; the police couldn’t help; her neighbors and parents couldn’t help. Only if she’d had a gun and knew how to use it — after carefully disregarding everything Joe Biden has said on the subject — might she have been able to save her own life.

Numerous studies, including one by the National Institute of Justice, show that crime victims who resist a criminal with a gun are less likely to be injured than those who do not resist at all or who resist without a gun. That’s true even when the assailant is armed.

Liberals’ advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it. The Times’ advice is: Get a protective order. The NRA’s advice is: Blow the dirtbag’s head off. Or, for the delicate: Resist with a gun, the only effective means to stop an attack.

Apparently a lot of abused women prefer not to lie back and take it. Looking at data from Detroit, Houston and Miami, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly found that the vast majority of wives who killed their husbands were not even indicted, much less convicted, because it was found they were acting in self-defense.

But the Times doesn’t want abused women to have a fighting chance. Instead, it keeps pushing gun control policies that not only won’t stop violent men from murdering their wives, but will disarm their intended victims.

Lies of the Left Proven Wrong Again


Florida Update: Concealed Carry Permits Up, Violent Crime Down

Written by 

The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history, delighted Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, Inc. “We’re happy to have facts and statistics put into these debates, because every time they do, we win,” he said.

Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011, while concealed carry permits jumped by 90 percent in that period. Further, violent crime of any kind dropped almost as much, 26 percent.

There were naysayers, but their voices are becoming muted as more and more states have adopted “shall-issue” carry laws and have seen their own crime rates drop as well. One of the naysayers was Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist who calls himself “as liberal as they get.” He said the link between more permits and less crime might just be a coincidence. He said that nationally, crime has been falling steadily since 1991 and Florida’s numbers might just be part of that trend. He warned against drawing too hasty a conclusion that one statistic caused the other. “The real problem there in drawing conclusions is that you’re guessing why that decline or change in gun violence has occurred,” he stated.

In a backhanded support of Kleck’s warning, Arthur Hayhoe, the executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said “It’s difficult to attach gun control to the reduction of crime, and vice versa. We don’t know what works. We can’t prove that gun control works because we don’t have gun control laws.”

Kleck has authored numerous books and articles over the last 20 years, but none garnered as much national attention as his 1994 National Self-Defense Survey which, based on a survey of 5,000 households, concluded that there were far more incidents where gun owners defended themselves against potentially violent crime than there were actual crimes involving the use of guns. This outraged liberals who thought Kleck would find something that would support their typically anti-gun posture. One such was Marvin Wolfgang, another liberal Florida criminologist who described himself as being “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among all criminologists in this country.” He said,

I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns — ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people…. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck … The reason I am troubled is that [he has] provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator … I do not like [his] conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault [his] methodology….

Such a report from Florida must encourage Professor John Lott, who in 2000 authored the groundbreaking book More Guns, Less CrimeLott never intended to become the lightning rod for the anti-gun forces. He began the study initially because he saw that much of what passed for valid statistical analysis in the field was poorly done, and he saw an opportunity to correct and update it. What it did was change his life, and not necessarily for the better. In his recent update to the book, Lott wrote,

Ten years have passed since the second edition of this book. During that time, both the argument and the data have been hotly debated. This debate has often been unpleasant, vociferous, and even disingenuous. To say that my career has suffered as a result is something of an understatement.… And yet … within the scholarly community [my] research has withstood criticism and remains sound. Further, the additional ten years of data provide continued strong support for [my] arguments.…

When Florida passed the first “shall-issue” law requiring authorities to issue concealed weapons permits to qualified citizens upon request in 1987, critics warned that the Sunshine State would soon become the “Gunshine” State, with predictions of differences being settled by gun fights in the streets, and crime soaring. The exact opposite happened. As Guncite.com noted, “homicide rates dropped faster than the national average [and] through 1997, only one permit holder out of over the 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide.”

That was then. This is now. Lott provided an update on right-to-carry laws for the Maryland Law Review last October in which he noted that there are now more than 912,000 permit holders in Florida, many of whom have had their permits for years. Across the country, as some 40 other states have joined Florida in its decision to allow “shall-issue” permits to its citizens, the number of permit holders has reached nearly eight million, and is still climbing. And Lott is getting support for his once-controversial view by recent studies showing similar declines in violent crime. Wrote Lott:

There have been a total of 29 peer reviewed studies by economists and criminologists, 18 supporting the hypothesis that shall-issue laws reduce crime, 10 not finding any significant effect on crime … and [one] paper … finding that right-to-carry laws temporarily increase one type of violent crime: aggravated assault.

He noted that the predicted disasters following passage of such laws never happened. In fact, despite more and more states adopting them, not a single one of those laws has been repealed. As Lott noted,

One simple measure of how well these laws have worked is a political one: despite states adopting right-to-carry laws as long ago as the 1920s, there has never even been a legislative hearing held to rescind these laws.

In that paper, Lott took delight in debunking so-called studies by anti-gun groups that have distorted the data to prove a different, and less favorable, conclusion:

A June 2010 analysis of the gun control groups’ claims examined those groups’ claims for Florida: the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders.

They boldly assert that seventeen Florida permit holders have “killed” people with their guns over the past three years [from May 2007 to May 2010] and that this one state by itself accounts for seventeen of the ninety-six “killer” permit holders nationwide.

Yet even though a newspaper reported on the shooting, seven cases were such clear-cut cases of self-defense that no one was even charged with a crime, three cases involved suicide, and two of the other cases, including one involving a police officer, actually didn’t involve permit holders. [Emphases added.]

That means that, following Lott’s rigorous refutation of those inflated statistics, just five out of more than half a million permit holders were involved in a criminal case in that three-year period.

That latest information from Florida just confirms what Lott had discovered years ago: Carrying reduces crime. Wrote Lott: “Armageddon never happened … in state after state when right-to-carry laws have been adopted, the entire debate quickly becomes a non-issue within a year.”

The time is almost here when carrying a concealed firearm is so commonplace that it won’t even be worth commenting on. Florida and Professor John Lott have led the way.

 

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.

URGENT! MUST READ AND ACT! This Makes the 2014 Mid Term Elections All The More Important


by

Obama’s Advisers: Disarm America Through Taxation

244142-guns-money-and-ammo

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819.

Here’s what Obama’s advisors are telling him about the way to confiscate guns: Tax them.

They are advising him to tax guns, ammunition, magazines, and licenses and then attach draconian remedies for failure to register and pay the taxes. Set the taxes low the first year, then increase them gradually to the point where a person owning an AR 15, three magazines and a box of ammo would owe $5,000 a year in taxes.

If a gun owner doesn’t pay, the small print at the end of the tax law would subject him to jail and confiscation of everything he owns.

Why use this approach? Because people ignore gradual change and taxes can be imposed as a gradual change. It’s only when two things happen simultaneously that revolution occurs. First, the ideals underlying the society must be undermined. That has already happened. And second, there must be a spark that ignites revolt. Since traditions and ideals of the country have already been compromised, it would be unwise to create any sparks.

Taxes ignite no sparks. Getting a tax bill is a non-event. The hapless taxpayer grinds his teeth and gets out his checkbook. He’s in a bad mood for a month. There is nothing to rally around. No one has been killed or invaded, at least at the point where the tax has been imposed.

Under this taxing approach you increase taxes to the point no one can pay them, then send a tax bill to the gun owners you know about (in Pennsylvania, that’s pretty much everyone who owns a gun), and you wait for someone not to pay. When a preferred target doesn’t pay, you send the storm troopers to his house, find his guns, and arrest him. You take the offender’s guns and his house and put him in jail for twenty years. Then you publicize the arrest and declare a period of amnesty for other weekend rebels and watch the guns flow in.

At that point, the country will have been effectively disarmed.

After the taxes are imposed and offending gun owners are picked off one at a time, wives will implore their husbands not to risk the family home, all their savings and the husband’s own freedom. And they will point to the examples of imprisoned and bankrupted gun owners that have already been held up to public view.

Norman Thomas described America’s descent into socialism very much in the way I have described America’s descent into gun confiscation:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without every knowing how it happened.”*

That’s the smart way to do it, Barack. Get us a little farther down the road to socialism, then quietly tax guns, and finally, take them all.

*Source cited quote from “The Liberal Mind,” pg, 27 by Lyle H. Rossiter

Are You Smarter Than A Sixth Grader?


Dianne Feinstein: Assault Weapons Like Child Pornography

feinstein gunThe Senate Judiciary Committee passed Feinstein’s gun-grabbing bill that bans over 150 different types of guns, but it didn’t pass without a fight from Republicans. Ted Cruz grilled Feinstein on the Constitutionality of her gun ban, reminding her that the same “right of the people” applies equally to the 2nd Amendment as it does to the 1st and 4th Amendments.

He asked her if she thought it within the purview of the federal government to ban certain books because it didn’t like them (in violation of the 1st) or claim that certain citizens are not protected against unlawful searches and seizures (in violation of the 4th). After all, he contended, this is what she and her Democrat team are doing with the 2nd Amendment and semi-automatic weapons. They’ve simply deemed those firearms “assault” weapons and have arbitrarily decided that they are scarier than other guns for the time being, and because of that, they can be legally banned.

But she didn’t want a lecture on the Constitution:

”I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war — and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

She strongly objected to Senator Cruz’s use of the term “prohibited.” She said that nothing’s being prohibited, because there are 2,271 exemptions. She said:

“Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so.”

After she didn’t answer Cruz’s question, he asked it again, to which Feinstein reluctantly responded, “No.” The government does not have the authority to ban certain books, because that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

But then she backpedaled when other Democratic members of the committee chimed in and reminded her of child pornography. She then changed her answer and said that child porn books can be legally banned because they are not protected under the 1st Amendment. So, banning weapons (with “exceptions”) is OK, because they’re not protected under the 2nd Amendment, just like child porn. Therefore, it’s not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

When are they going to say that with regard to handguns and shotguns and knives? Who decides which weapons are not protected by the Bill of Rights? Apparently Dianne Feinstein. And we should trust her to make these arbitrary decisions because she’s “not a sixth grader.” She’s a “reasonably well-educated” person. And yet she still doesn’t get it that banning semi-automatic guns won’t do anything to curb violent crime, but will most likely increase it.

More Evidence of the Socialist Mentality of the California Government


California Gun Confiscation Program to be “National Model”

gun california confiscationCalifornia’s Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote a letter to Joe Biden recommending that California serve as a national model for gun confiscation. “What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” she wrote. In total, about 20,000 Californians and 200,000 citizens nationwide own guns “illegally.”

Probably no other state tracks firearm sales as closely as California. They’re constantly cross-referencing their gun registry with criminal and mental health records. About 15 to 20 previously “legal” gun owners get added to the criminal or mental health records daily, all of sudden making them criminals for owning a firearm.

If someone was recently admitted to a mental hospital, that revokes that person’s 2nd Amendment rights. If someone had a restraining order placed against him, (whether justified or not) that revokes that person’s 2nd Amendment rights.

California’s Department of Justice has been going around door-to-door and actively participating in gun confiscation. Last year, they seized over 2,000. They also confiscated 117,000 rounds of ammo and 11,000 high-capacity magazines.

John Marsh, one of California DOJ’s supervising agents for the gun confiscation program, lamented that he got called the Antichrist by a resident who was outraged that he was taking people’s guns away. He assured Bloomberg News that they weren’t “contacting anybody who can legally own a gun.”

Yeah, but they’ll be saying that long after they’ve taken everybody’s guns away. They’ll claim that not one “lawful” gun owner had his guns confiscated. It just so happened that all gun owners in some way revoked their own 2nd Amendment rights, making their possession of firearms illegal, warranting gun confiscation.

This is how they’ll take everyone’s guns away supposedly without violating people’s 2nd Amendment rights. They’ll continue to champion the 2nd Amendment while they persist in keeping guns out of the “wrong hands.” They’ll just eventually consider every single non-government civilian as the “wrong hands.”

Lynette Phillips, one Californian whose guns were seized by the California DOJ, recently stayed involuntarily at a mental hospital for 2 days. That was enough for her to show up on their list of “illegal” gun owners and have her and her husband’s 3 guns taken away. She said that the mental health professional blew a situation out of proportion, and she was forced to stay in a mental health facility. That’s entirely plausible. But was she able to state her case to the police before they stole her weapons? Of course not. Once you show up on the list, that’s it.

We already know who Homeland Security deems to be domestic terrorists. Mental health professionals aren’t going to be any different, because they don’t want to “take any chances” of a gun winding up in the hands of someone who might have a politically incorrect opinion. After all, they’ll be held accountable for not turning someone in who ends up committing a crime. So, that’s their incentive for wanting to be overly cautious.

This is why conservatives should not at all be in favor of sanctimonious politicians trying to keep guns out of the “wrong hands” via background checks and mental health records. You and I are the wrong hands.

Part of the solution is for states to enforce penalties for murder, rape and other violent crimes. Murderers and rapists especially should be executed, regardless of whether or not they were “insane” at the time of the crime. And it doesn’t matter what weapon, if any, they used to threaten or kill their victim. The focus should not be on the tools used to commit the crime, but rather the criminal act itself.

The other half of the solution is to encourage all households to own and carry firearms for their protection. Cities and small towns around the country are starting to do this, but it needs to be much more widespread. Gun proliferation among law-abiding citizens is far more effective than a police state in combating crime.

We can’t and shouldn’t depend on the police or mental health professionals for crime prevention. Yes, guns will end up in the hands of criminals, regardless of the laws. But I’d much rather have good people and bad people own guns than just the bad people. Besides, we outnumber the bad guys by far. But that won’t be true for long if California becomes the national model for gun confiscation.

Great Questions. Any Good Answers Yet?


Op/Ed https://www.forbes.com

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation

Soldiers from the 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st ...Armored Personnel Carriers in Baghdad. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice.  It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.  As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month.  Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years.  In America.

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation.  As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the  Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”…

“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

Why indeed?  It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America.  There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok.  About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division.  And is wise to the ways.   The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this:  it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget.  So… why not?

Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland?  Because it’s wrong in every way.  President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control.  The federal government can (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.

Remember the Sequester?  The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS.  Quality ammunition is not cheap.  (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)

Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse.  According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:  “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”

At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century.  To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.

Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips.  Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.

Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership.  According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,

“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’

I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’

’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.

I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.

He simply grimaced and turned away. …

Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”

Mr. Obama?  Where’s the disdain now?  Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”

  • The federal government would set an example of restraint in the matter of weaponry.
  • It would reduce the deficit without squeezing essential services.
  • It would do both in a way that was palatable to liberals and conservatives, slightly depolarizing America.
  • It would somewhat defuse, by the government making itself less armed-to-the-teeth, the anxiety of those who mistrust the benevolence of the federales.

If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little national conversation. Madame Secretary?  Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what “homeland security” really means.  Discuss.

Pastor Standing Up Against the Politically Correct


Church Celebrates 2nd Amendment, Kids Make Pop-Tart Guns During Sunday School

By / 13 March 2013 / https://www.clashdaily.com

DSC_0687bThis past Sunday, a Chicago area church sponsored a Second Amendment Sunday filled with “assault” pop-tarts, “combat” cupcakes and a sheet-cake that featured a chocolate semi-automatic Glock handgun with a quote from Jesus that read “Blessed are the peacemakers.”  John Kirkwood, Pastor of Grace-Gospel Fellowship in Bensenville Illinois said the idea came to him after reading a column by Doug Giles entitled “Christian Parents Should Have Their Kids Play With Toy Guns.”

“Giles has a way of exposing the absurdity of the left,” said Kirkwood, “his article was in response to some Pastor from St. Louis and his ‘toy gun’ buyback program.   That and the news about 7 year olds getting suspended for threatening pop-tarts and menacing cupcakes led me to stand up for true American values and the Biblical wisdom that underlies them.”  The Pastor, referring to two recent cases in which a pop-tart shaped like a handgun and cupcakes topped by plastic soldiers brought on what many felt was over-the-top school discipline, decided to respond in kind.

“We had an ‘assault’ pop-tart challenge in our Jr. Church where each child who wanted to participate chewed a pop-tart into the shape of a gun and the top four would win prizes; in this case a toy gun,” said Kirkwood, “the guns were named for celebrities.”

“Second runner up received a double barrel shot-gun that we nicknamed ‘The Biden,’ and when we presented it we made sure to say what ‘not’ to do with it in a real situation.  The prize for runner up was a Navy Seal sniper rifle that we named ‘The Chris Kyle’ in honor of the American Sniper.  We felt that it was appropriate,” added Kirkwood, “given the insulting way that this administration ignored the death of this American hero, yet had the crust to send a delegation to the memorial service for Hugo Chavez.”

What was the top award?   Kirkwood smiled and noted, “You know, I stood in the toy aisle for a good half an hour to choose just the right one and it turned out to be the biggest Nerf gun that I could find, and the kicker – the box was marked ‘semi-auto’ and ‘high capacity,’ so we named that one ‘the Feinstein.’”

The church had signs, sold t-shirts and even had a chili cook off to honor the day but it wasn’t all about mocking political correctness.  “I instructed my teachers to plan their lessons around the Biblical understanding of the value of life, the directives to protect that life and the right to bear arms in doing so.  We deconstructed the myth of the pacifist Jesus and connected the dots between the second amendment and the Bible,” Kirkwood remarked.

David Steiger, the church coordinator of Bible Boot Camp, added, “At Grace Gospel Fellowship we take words seriously, especially those of God and the founders.  That’s why this past Sunday ‘we the people’ sought to honor ‘in God we trust’ by examining God ordained rights in the light of the Declaration, the Bill of Rights and most importantly the revealed Word of God. We celebrated 2nd Amendment Sunday as an assembly because we know … if Christians don’t do it, if Christians WON’T push back, the single most important experiment in the history of the world will come to an ungodly end.”

What was the general response to this rather unique worship service? “Well one couple did walk out, though I was told it was for another engagement, but overall the response was tremendous and we plan on doing it every year … and next year the prizes will be even better.  Our Bible Boot Camp class (High School age) will be challenged to come up with a 5 minute speech on the right to bear arms and the winner will walk away with a Ruger 10/22,” said Kirkwood, “who knows, maybe by then we’ll have sponsors.”

As for the odds on this becoming a national phenomenon among fellow pastors, Kirkwood smirked, “you’re kidding me right?  The reason this country is in this condition is not because sinners act like sinners, it’s because Christians don’t act at all.  And pastors?  They’re notorious cowards … anything that will come between a filled pew and a filled collection plate … the hirelings scamper away.  Having said that, I have been contacted by three other pastors each from a different state who want to know more and asked me to send them material.”  The pastor went on to say, “There will always be a remnant … I hope to see a new Black Robe regiment rise up and man the wall.”

GUN CONFISCATION: HAS HAPPENED AND WILL AGAIN


WND EXCLUSIVE: https://www.wnd.com

Another senator warns of gun confiscation

Says criminals will acquire firearms regardless of law

author-image by Taylor Rose Email | Archive

Taylor Rose is a Washington, D.C., staff reporter for WND.
WASHINGTON – A ban on assault weapons will lead to “gun confiscation,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, today warned the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewing S. 150, the proposed “Assault Weapons Ban.”

In his opening statement, Grassley said

that despite banning “assault weapons,” mass shootings will continue and “criminals will continue

Anonymous Gun Buy Back Program In San Francisco

to circumvent” the law.

He predicted that after these current measures prove ineffective, “then we will continue to debate whether gun registration is needed and it will lead to gun confiscation.”

The senator reminded the committee that criminals do not comply with existing background check laws, and this type of legislation would punish lawful gun owners, rather than prevent crime.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., however, said the plan to ban a certain type of weapon “demeans the argument,” and the bill has nothing to do with confiscation.

Schumer said “all we are doing is extending the success of the Brady law,” claiming the 1993 act that instituted federal background checks “by almost universal agreement, has been extremely successful without any infringement upon lawful ownership.”

Majority Democrats on the committee then advanced S. 150 to the floor of the Senate, with all Republicans opposing the move.

Though Schumer said he supports the Second Amendment and is opposed to gun confiscation, in 2007 he voted against the Vitter Amendment to SA 2774, which would have protected American citizens from gun confiscation in the event of a national emergency.

Additionally, by resisting the Vitter Amendment, Schumer stood against a measure barring the United Nations from registering personal firearms in the U.S.

The specter of gun confiscation over the American people has increased. WND reported Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a Senate hearing last week asked Attorney General Eric Holder if an AR-15 might be a better defensive weapon at times than a shotgun.

Vice President Joe Biden several times has suggested in his advocacy of President Obama’s gun restrictions that people who need to defend themselves should buy a shotgun.

To Holder, Graham, said, “Let me give an example,” Graham began. “That you have a lawless environment where you have a natural disaster or some catastrophic event, and those things, unfortunately, do happen. And law and order breaks down because the police can’t travel, there’s no communication. And there are armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods.

“Can you envision a situation where if your home happens to be in the cross-hairs of this group that a better self-defense weapon may be a semiautomatic AR-15 versus a double-barrel shotgun?” Graham asked.

Holder dismissed the question, calling it a scenario from a “hypothetical” world.

Graham said facing such a threat, he would prefer an AR-15, and he disagreed with Holder’s suggestion that the scenario is removed from reality.

“Well, I’m afraid that world does exist. I think it existed in New Orleans, to some extent up in Long Island, it could exist tomorrow if there’s a cyber attack against the country and the power grid goes down and the dams are released and chemical plants are discharges,” he said.

Holder said, “I don’t think New Orleans would have been better served. … ”

Graham interjected: “What I’m saying is if my family was in the cross-hairs of gangs that were roaming around New Orleans or any other location, that the deterrent effect of an AR-15 to protect my family is better than a double-barrel shotgun, but the vice president and I have a disagreement on that.”

Concerned about surveillance drones, tanks in the streets and gun confiscation? Find out “HOW AMERICA IS BECOMING A POLICE STATE” in this shocking WND special report.

WND reported last month on the events in New Orleans following Katrina’s assault.

There, thousands of weapons – legally obtained and owned – were grabbed from citizens after New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced: “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.”

To make sure the message was loud and clear, the city’s Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley told ABC News: “No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.”

Then they did exactly that.

One man at a post-Katrina meeting assembled in conjunction with the National Rifle Association said: “The bottom line is this. Once they did it, they set a precedent. And what we’ve got to be sure [of] is that the precedent stops here.”

In a series of videos, the NRA documented the weapons grab by police in New Orleans with videos that show them physically taking weapons from individuals, including one woman who was stunned when officers threw her against her kitchen wall because she had a small handgun for self-defense.

The not-to-be-forgotten images, Part 1:

Part 2: To See Video Copy and Paste This embed// <![CDATA[
src=”http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=ZyeDlrOTpLZ3lvDqMEnNLbuYxhjbSBWJ&width=626&video_pcode=9kcm06PtVGNZkFkXR2898mHnBha_&height=352&deepLinkEmbedCode=ZyeDlrOTpLZ3lvDqMEnNLbuYxhjbSBWJ”&gt;
// ]]>

The police actions – many of the victims describe the gun confiscation as out-and-out theft – left New Orleans’ residents, who had been prepared to stand their ground and defend themselves from thugs and looters running amok, completely defenseless.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, told WND such plans “start smacking of a non-The United States of America” and more of “some Third World country.”

The government, he said, appears to want ever more control over people’s lives, which “is crippling the ability of people to defend themselves … in situations like a Hurricane Katrina where the police were nowhere around and people were taking up arms to protect their property.”

He noted that since the U.S. Supreme Court has determined police do not have a constitutional obligation to protect people from crime, self-reliance often can be the key to survival.

Gun confiscation schemes, then, mean “we’re going to have a citizenry that is helpless in the face of lawless people.” And that, said Thompson, is unconstitutional.

Herb Titus, a nationally known constitutional attorney and law professor, told WND government’s claim always is that such draconian powers will only be used “in an emergency situation.”

But there are so many “emergencies,” he said, that “all of our rights are in jeopardy.”

“It’s typical of the government to do this, typical of this age. You see the government believes it can make the decision for you better than you can make it for yourself. There’s a lot of this from the Obama administration,” he said.

The result?

Government “as our master, rather than servant,” he said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/another-senator-warns-of-gun-confiscation/#8QV2j11CVPT2DsQ9.99

Did You Hear About the American City that Requires It’s Citizens to be Armed?


Another City Requires Its Residents To Own Firearms

nelson ordinanceWe’ve written before about Kennesaw, Georgia, the town that since 1982 has had an ordinance that requires gun ownership among its residents. Part (a) of the ordinance read:

 “In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.”

  Part (b) listed those who were exempt from the statute that included those who were physically or mentally disabled such that they were incapable of safely using a firearm; those who “conscientiously opposed” the ownership of guns; and those who were felons.

Now there’s another city actually not far from Kennesaw that’s doing the same thing. Nelson, Georgia sits on the borderline between Pickens and Cherokee Counties, and for this reason, police response time is low. Nelson has one police car that patrols the city during the day for 8 hours, but for the remaining 16 hours, they have no one. This is why the city is requiring its residents to own firearms, and their ordinance is modeled after Kennesaw’s.

If you asked someone like Piers Morgan, he’d say that these kinds of ordinances are all about money. They’re all about padding the pockets of the evil gun lobby. Now, I’m all about following the money, but you have to know when it applies. Money is in every transaction, and just because there is a money connection, doesn’t mean that it must be bad.

If a city encouraged its residents to start growing their own food as a way to lessen the blow associated with an economic meltdown, would they just be padding the pockets of the “garden lobby?” It would no doubt be good for those companies selling seeds and gardening supplies, but it would also be good for those starting a garden.

You follow the money with things like Obamacare. It’s a federal mandate that will eventually apply to every single American. It’s a mandate that will increase the cost of healthcare and drastically lower the quality all at the expense of the American taxpayers. It harms the American people and benefits large corporations. Those are the instances where you “follow the money” to find out why we have such stupid laws.

A city ordinance requiring its residents to own a gun does not harm them in any way. It benefits them. And yes, it benefits gun manufacturers. This is a win-win situation, and therefore the money connection isn’t relevant.

One Nelson, Georgia resident was complaining that this ordinance is over the line. He said, “This is big government at its worst. Government mandating what a free individual can and will have in his home.” Oh please. I can think of far worse mandates from a government. Like mandating that everyone get rid of his guns.

More Proof of How the Left Lies About Guns


Video-Destroys-Myth-About-Large-Capacity-Magazines

New Video Destroys Myth About Large Capacity Magazines

Posted on: February 28th, 2013

A new video obtained by the Citizens Committee for the Right to keep and Bear Arms destroys the myth surrounding so-called “high capacity magazines” by proving that determined shooters using smaller capacity magazines can fire just as fast, and in some cases even faster despite having to reload.

The startling video demonstration, conducted under the supervision of Boone County, Ind. Sheriff Ken Campbell and funded by ArmaLite, “throws cold water on anti-gunners who argue that magazine limitations are necessary to prevent mass shootings,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are all indebted to ArmaLite for this informative effort.”

“Under Sheriff Campbell’s supervision,” he explained, “two shooters – an experienced man and a novice female – are able to repeatedly fire 30-round shot strings at three targets, using 15-, ten- and six-round magazines, all in under 30 seconds.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b2Upjn5DR0o&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

– See more at: http://patriotoutdoornews.com/5672/new-video-destroys-myth-about-large-capacity-magazines#sthash.iaWYeLfN.dpuf

Perspective from the Gun


I Am a Gun

By / 25 February 2013 /

by R.G. Yoho
Clash Daily Guest Contributor

MH900398959I am a gun. I have challenged the waves and crossed a vast, unforgiving sea. I have landed on these shores. I am held by the pilgrim, the pioneer, and the trail blazer. I have brought civilization to a barren wilderness.

I am a gun. I have fed the early settlers. I have protected their cabins. I have flamed in the cause of liberty. I have brought down tyrants. I have given birth to a brave and noble land of freedom.

I am a gun. I have ended slavery. I have tamed the West. I have established law and order. I have crossed a continent.

I am a gun. I am fallen into the dirt wherever brave warriors die. I rest beside their bodies. I am stained with their blood. I am covered by their battle helmets. Planted with my bayonet in the soil, I stand as a battlefield cross, a simple but poignant memorial for their sacrifice.

I am a gun. I returned across that vast, unforgiving sea. I have won two World Wars. I have flown over war-torn skies. I have jumped from planes, parachuting into danger.

I am a gun. I have stormed the beaches, the jungles, the volcanic sands, and the frozen land. I have won great victories and signed peace treaties. I have returned to our shores for ticker tape parades and sometimes with no welcome at all.

I am a gun. I started out as a rather primitive weapon, only firing one shot before I must be reloaded. But as the times changed and as man progressed, so did I.

I am a gun. I can be used for both good and evil. I can take a life. I can be used to save them.

I am a gun. I can inflict great hardship and suffering upon many in my path. I can also be used by good men to stop the actions of evil ones. I can end the bloodshed and restore peace.

I am a gun. I can put meat on a family’s table. I can protect your household from harm by intruders. I can provide a means of recreation.

I am a gun. If left untouched upon the table or nightstand, I can harm no one.

I am a gun. I cannot drive to an elementary school, a crowded shopping mall, or a Hollywood movie premiere.

I am a gun. My eye cannot see but where I am pointed. I have no motive. I have no soul. I have no compassion. I hold no malice.

I am a gun. I cast no vote. I hold no political allegiance. I embrace no party. I employ no political agenda. I practice no faith.

I am a gun. When only the military or the police may own me, then I will always be used to inflict great numbers of deaths upon their citizens.

I am a gun. Hitler used me to drive millions of Jews into cattle cars like livestock, transporting them to the gas chambers for their deaths. Stalin, Mao, and other notorious butchers of humanity used me to maintain their evil and twisted lust for power.

I am a gun. Those who seek to remove me from the hands of a free people are brothers to those who commit great acts of genocide.

I am a gun. I can be used to stop the forces of evil. I can be used for evil itself.

I am a gun. Those who use me to harm others can only be stopped by those who wisely employ me in their defeat.

I am a gun. Samuel Colt understood that I could even the odds against those of overwhelming strength or superior numbers. I have made it possible for the meek to overcome the mighty.

I am a gun. When you mention the names of Wyatt Earp, Bill Hickok, Alvin York, Audie Murphy, and Chris Kyle, it brings me to mind. Their mastery of me made them famous.

I am a gun. I have been praised and cursed. I have been both destroyed and treasured. I have been proudly passed down from father to son.

I am a gun. I am only as good or as bad as the ones who possess me.

I am a gun. I am the defender of liberty. I am the guarantor of free speech. I am a friend of the free. I am the missing element of the enslaved.

I am a gun. My purposes and my destiny are in your hands alone.

I am a gun.

get-attachmentR.G. Yoho is a writer and author of six books.

 

– See more at: http://clashdaily.com/2013/02/i-am-a-gun/#sthash.PJDFL0PV.dpuf

Remember the Propaganda Machine of the NOW DE-FUNKED U.S.S.R?


http://freedomoutpost.com

Congressman Blasts Obama For Using Fake Twitter Messages To Fight Gun Control

obama-twitterRep Steve Stockman (R-TX) made accusations against Barack Obama on Monday over his gun control campaign claiming that is it fraud based with fake messages over Twitter. Stockman claims that Obama is seeking to give the appearance of support greater than what he has for gun control legislation by flooding Twitter with messages from people that don’t exist.

“Obama’s anti-gun campaign is a fraud,” Stockman said. “Obama’s supporters are panicking and willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if it means trying to defraud Congress,” he added. “I call upon the president to denounce this phony spam campaign.”

When Obama called for people to tweet their congressmen in support of more gun control legislation, Stockman said he received a mere 16 tweets. However, he notes that upon closer examination, only six of the tweets were from six actual people and that the messages were all identical.

“The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots,” his office said.

Then, in a press release issued by Stockman, he writes, “The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots.”

• They all use the default “egg” avatar.
• They have account names resembling names automatically suggested by Twitter.
• They have engaged in no human interaction.
• They have tweeted almost nothing promotional, sponsored messages pushing real estates websites and other liberal “grassroots” campaigns.
• They follow mostly MSNBC anchors or media outlets, not actual people.

His press release went on to point out, “Reporter Robert Stacy McCain’s investigation of the fraudulent Obama campaign, available at www.theothermccain.com, finds the majority of the Obama-supporting accounts were created in less than 48 hours before contacting members of Congress.”

“Even more interesting, Stockman staff find two accounts happened to tweet Stockman back-to-back,” the press release continued. “Both have only one follower, former Obama digital strategist Brad Schenck. Schenck somehow found and followed them before they ever tweeted anything, followed anyone or followed any real people. Of the six real people who contacted Stockman only one can be verified as a constituent. One lives outside the district and the remaining four do not list where they live.”

“If you are a real person who contacted us about your support for the President’s anti-gun campaign, we are listening. We do not agree with you, but we appreciate your sincere opinions and encourage you to continue to contact us,” said Stockman. “But the vast majority of the President’s supporters have no feelings because they fake profiles from spammers.”

“The White House has some explaining to do. My own staff, and others looking into Obama’s Twitter campaign, find the vast majority of messages are coming from fraudulent accounts. Some of these accounts are linked directly to a former Obama staffer. To what extent is the White House involved in this attempt to defraud Congress,” said Stockman.

Stockman ultimately said that the Obama anti-gun campaign was “using the same scam techniques that sell male enhancement pills.”

Really??????????


Chicago Union Head: Let Us Carry Guns, Get Paid Like Cops

Union members in Chicago are now intent on carrying guns aboard their buses if members of the civilian public are allowed to do so. And naturally, they want more taxpayer money for their trouble.

The NRA has insisted on concealed-carry laws that would allow the general public to carry guns on public transit; now Amalgamated Transit Union Division 308 President Robert Kelly says such a policy is “outrageous and cannot be allowed.” Chicago Transit Authority President Forrest Claypool agrees, “It would be disastrous to allow passengers to carry concealed weapons on our trains and buses.”

But sensing an opportunity to push for higher pay, Kelly added that if civilians were allowed to carry weapons, CTA employees “should get training and have the same right for protection. We will also need to be paid accordingly since we will have dual jobs as transit workers and police officers.”

The law in Illinois is slated to change radically come mid-June, unless Illinois comes up with a Constitutional law concerning concealed-carry rights. If not, anyone with the ID to purchase a firearm will be able to carry guns. As Chicago mayor says – and as the unions clearly believe – never let a good opportunity to waste taxpayer cash go to waste.

Identical Action with the Same Backdrop. Different Outcome?


 

Hitler Obama with Children

Another Socialist Nail in the Coffin Of American Freedom


http://www.redflagnews.com

URGENT: Veterans are receiving letters from Obama administration prohibiting the ownership of firearms… Developing…

Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

— Michael Connelly, J.D.

Executive Director, United States Justice Foundation

Follow Us: @redflagnews on Twitter

SAY WHAT?????????


http://www.insightcrime.org

Mexico to Ask US Senate to Create Gun Registry in Border States

Mexico wants a gun registry in the Southwest US Mexico wants a gun registry in the Southwest US

Mexico‘s Congress voted to formally ask the United States Senate to create a registry of all commercialized firearms in the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Although the motion will have little impact in the US, it shows the gun control issue continues to resonate on both sides of the border.

The measure was approved January 9 by Mexico‘s Permanent Commission, the government body that meets when the Senate and the lower house of Congress, the Chamber of Deputies, is in recess.

The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) senator who introduced the proposal said it was intended to make it easier to trace guns used in violent attacks, reports Mexican newspaper Informador. Close to 60,000 people were killed during the six-year presidency of Felipe Calderon, who left office in December.

The US Southwest is a significant source of weaponry for Mexico’s criminal organizations, who typically purchase firearms from US gun stores via a middleman or “straw buyer.”

In one indication of the reach of these arms trafficking networks, a semi-automatic pistol recently found at the scene of one shootout in Mexico has been traced back to a former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, as Minneapolis newspaper the Star Tribune reports. The semi-automatic was found at the scene of the shootout that killed a Mexican beauty queen.

The gun was traced back to an ATF agent who worked in Arizona and played a prominent role in the so-called “Fast and Furious” scandal, which charged the ATF had willingly allowed weapons to “walk” across the border in an attempt to prosecute the main purchasers of the guns in Mexico. The scheme failed to reach the high level targets, and some of the weapons were later used in attacks on US law enforcement prompting a congressional investigation and hearings. The ATF agent apparently sold the weapon online for $1,100 to a US citizen in Arizona.

InSight Crime Analysis

The vote will likely prove to be a symbolic one. Gun laws in the US Southwest vary, with stricter controls enforced in California, compared to Arizona and Texas. It is unlikely that the US Senate will begin to pressure these areas to enforce more stringent controls anytime soon, although President Barack Obama has said that he is contemplating presidential decrees that would make it more difficult to obtain assault weapons nationwide. This threat follows the shooting deaths of 27 people, most of them children, in a Newtown, Connecticut school.

The US is not the only illicit source of weaponry in Mexico. Guns stolen or illegally sold by the Mexican military, the owner of the only legal gun store in the country, are also thought to provide criminal groups with firepower. Some soldiers and police in Central America also illegally supply weapons to organized criminal groups throughout the region.

Still, the US is by far the largest supplier of weapons to Mexican criminal organizations, according to numerous ATF agents interviewed by InSight Crime.

Another Atempt Toward Tyranny


Dems Sponsor Bill To Violate Fourth Amendment Rights Of Gun Owners

628x471Washington State Democrats have sponsored Senate Bill 5737, which has a little provision that apparently was to go unnoticed that would have said that police have a right to search a private citizen’s home once per year if they own certain types of firearms.

According to the legislation:

In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.

Yes, that means liberal Democrats pushed forward this legislation in open and defiance of the Fourth Amendment. But that’s not all. When they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they exclaimed it wasn’t their fault and that they made mistake.

“I have to admit it shouldn’t be in there,” said Sen. Ed Murray (D-Seattle). “I made a mistake,” said Sen. Adam Kline (D-Seattle). “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

Yeah, there was no mistake. This was deliberate. Murray and Kline were sponsors of the bill. They knew exactly what was in it. This is just more BS from the Left.

Murray also told a gun-control rally in January, “We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians. We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

Interestingly, Danny Westneat at the Seattle Times writes about Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal. “I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

Now this part is actually somewhat encouraging. If a self professed liberal Democrat, a trial lawyer at that, understands why we believe a real danger of government takeover and abandonment of the law of the land is genuine, then that is at least one guy who is thinking. Hopefully, he’ll drop his liberalism and become a pro-gun attorney!

Who are the people of all these government agencies going to use this ammunition on?


The Right Scoop on February 15th, 2013

Mark Levin believes that the Obama administration is buying vast amounts of ammo to prepare for the collapse of our financial system and our society, and the violence that might break out as a result.

He explains below:

http://www.therightscoop.com/preparing-for-societal-collapse-why-mark-levin-believes-the-govt-is-buy-vast-amounts-of-ammo/

Added Note by Me:

What is the easiest way to disarm a country that is so heavily armed as the citizens of the United States? Let them keep their weapons, but see to it that they have no ammunition to shot. Simple solution.

The Obama Administration, along with all their supporting groups, know that disarming the citizens of the United States of America would be a daunting, and long-term fight, one lasting longer than they have years left in their reign. The NRA and other such groups are strong and well represented. The vast number of gun owners and those determined to stay FREE are a formidable foe. The blogosphere is alive with messages like this reminding American citizens that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to discourage the rise of a tyrant like President Obama and his forces. So, they decide to take the easier way and buy up all the ammunition (with OUR TAX DOLLARS) and thus, disarming America. Any fight we can make won’t last long without ammunition to shoot.

Add to that the fact that President Obama is in agreement, and a supporter of, the United Nations determination for a world-wide gun confiscation (http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/07/26/opposition-mounts-to-un-gun-control-treaty-opposition-mounts-to-un-gun-control-treaty; http://www.ammoland.com/2011/07/united-nations-push-for-gun-control-treaty-continues/; http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/ and so many more).

Are you armed?

Citizen Reserve Police Force


FreedomOutpost_Masthead

Police Chief Wants Citizens As ‘Reserve Force’ To Defend Against Feds

kesslerMy friends, there is hope. Law enforcement officers at the local level are making their stand and they want you to be a part of that. While I’ve written on various sheriffs that have made their own stance to protect their citizens from anyone attempting to confiscate guns, I recently ran across Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania. He wants citizens to join with his police department in building a “reserve force” that will aid his police force should the need arise to resist Federal authorities when it comes to the Second Amendment.

I spoke with Chief Kessler and he is most definitely a patriot and a Constitutionalist. The police force is quite small in his town and, much like my own town, criminal activity is not rampant.

The reserve force will be made up of volunteers, they can be past or current police officers with act 120 training, along with non law enforcement personnel interested in joining the reserve force. All non law enforcement personnel won’t have any powers to arrest, but will be required to go through a background check, supply their own duty gear, uniform (military BDU, etc), weapons, ammunition. Everyone will be required to attend a firearms certification course to qualify with both long gun and hand gun at a rate set by the firearm instructor. There will also be hand to hand combat training, knife fighting training, urban combat training, sniper courses, search and rescue etc. The reserve force would only be called upon in the event of a Federal invasion or foreign invasion of the jurisdiction. They would not be called on in ordinary police work nor would they have arrest powers. This reserve force would be distinct from militia, according to Kessler.

From his website:

ALERT! Anyone interested in joining a reserve force with the Gilberton Borough Police Department ,contact Chief Kessler immediately for details! Due to our Country’s current situation I’m compelled to form an auxiliary force, DHS ( Department of Home Land Security ) is stock piling ammunition , Stock Piling Machine guns at a alarming rate! I believe we have no choice for what MAY OR MAY NOT happen shortly!, Ask yourself this one question, can you walk into any sporting good store and purchase 22LR, 9mm, 45ACP , 40 caliber,, 5.56/223 , 7.62×51 or 308 ammunition in quantity’s more then a box or two ? (OR ANY AT ALL) if you answer No, ask yourself why ???? I’ll tell you why because the GOVERNMENT is STOCKPILING BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition! (for what ????) even the police can’t get ammo ! DHS has enough weapons and ammo to wage a 30 year GROUND war, ( BUT ON WHO and WHY ) what is wrong with this picture???, Maybe the tyrants want to take as much ammo off the civilian market AS POSSIBLE! either way it’s very disturbing!

Chief Kessler doesn’t make a lot of money and informed me that even ammunition and weapons he obtains are purchased by him. While the budget of the police force there is enough to provide them a salary, Kessler funnels some of his own money back into the force.

Kessler is a law enforcement officer who is looking to honor his father who honorably served during the Vietnam war. “If not for him, I would not be the man I am today,” he said. He’s also an Oath Keeper.

The Chief is active in his community, apart from being a Police Chief. On January 3, 2013 he drafted a piece of legislation called The 2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution so he could introduce it to local elected officials in Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania for consideration. The legislation was to reaffirm the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution which reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Along with the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves or that of a free state shall not be questioned.

<Gilberton Borough Police Chief Mark Kessler

“I wanted to draw my line in the sand,” Kessler writes. “I wanted to ask my elected officials to stand with freedom, stand with the oath they took to defend freedom, to stand with so many great Americans that shed their blood or gave the ultimate sacrifice defending.”

His resolution was adopted on January 24, 2013 by the Gilberton Borough Council.

Chief Kessler said, “For those of you who think no one has a right to keep and bear arms I suggest you buy a one-way ticket to the nearest dictatorship country! Cuba is close, the weather is beautiful all year round!”

He rightly identifies the Founders intentions concerning the Second Amendment. “First,” he begins, “our founding fathers learned from their experiences! Coming from a tyrannical dictatorship country that looked down on the people as peasants, often killing thousands, taking property, raping wives/daughters and much more.”

“Our founding fathers came to America to start a new life free from tyranny, oppression and dictatorship, to live free and express freedom without reprisals from Dictators,” he continues. “They drafted the constitution specifically adding the 2nd Amendment to protect themselves from the government, period! The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting purposes whatsoever.”

Kessler also has a message for the “bleeding heart liberals.”

“If by some chance you didn’t buy your tickets to Cuba, let me state ‘I will never disarm. I will never give up my high capacity magazines, firearm accessories or ammunition. I will never give up my freedoms. I will never retreat. I’m proud to be an American. I’m proud to serve my country. I’m proud of our military personnel that sides with freedom!’ Just because a mentally ill person commits a horrific crime does not mean I lose my rights.”

Chief Kessler says that he will stand on the side of freedom, rather than siding with “tyrannical thugs.”

He also has a word for those “law enforcement personnel standing on ‘Bozo’s’ stage, who are condemning firearm owners: “You disgust me.”

Chief Kessler also has several videos of his on his site.

If you wish to be a part of his “reserve force,” or if you are not in the area and wish to donate to the Gilberton Borough Police Department, you can contact Chief Kessler via snail mail, email or phone.

Attn: Chief Of Police
Gilberton Borough Police Department
2710 Main street
Mahanoy Plane, Pa 17949

chiefkessler[at]gmail.com
570-874-4790

UPDATE: Kessler will be interviewed on Arising Republic Radio on Friday, February 22, 2013 at 9pm EST. Calls will be taken.

Symbolism Over Substance


The State of the Union Address last night needed to be preceeded with the following warning; “Caution. You are about to hear from our far Left President who specializes in symbolism over substance. Do not expect any details, facts or provable statements. Expect to be overwhelmed with emotionalism for lack of genuine ideas.”

That is exactly what we got. President Obama delivered a speech full of nice ideas, but short on how to pay for them. Lots of blame assigned to the Republicans, and heavy on emotionalism (“They deserve a vote”). All in all I was not surprised at the content of the speech.

In order to know that we are all reading the same sheet of music, let’s make sure we all understand some of the “SYMBOLISMS” the President used, which is consistent with everyone else on the far Left;

  • “Balanced Approach”: $10 dollars in tax for every $1 we spend.
  • “Compromise with the Republicans”: They need to agree with 100% of everything we say, want and desire. Any exceptions and thee become horrible monsters who want to take food away from poor children, make everyone drink dirt water, return to the days of slavery, make women go into dark alleys to have abortions by coat hangers and generally destroy America as we know it. In summary, ay disagreement with the Left is equal to being Terrorist.
  • “Investment”: SPEND, SPEND, SPEND what we do not have. Continue to borrow money until we are in ruin so President Obama, can become Chancellor Obama under Marshall Law so he can disarm Americans, throw out the Constitution and create a new nation in his image and ideals of Collectivism/Socialism.
  • “Fair Income Reform”: Redistribution of wealth.
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform”: Let in all people who will vote Democrat and restrict all others. Notice they never address the people who have come here LEGALLY, and obeyed al our laws to become AMERICAN citizens.
  • “GUN CONTROL”: Means, “Citizen Control”. Every time any government disarms the citizenry, executes total control over their lives. The Second Amendment has only one foundational meaning; An armed citizenry is a protection from the rise of tyranny. Having the same or equal weapons to the military means, the citizens can truly maintain a fight for freedom.

The rest is more of the same.

“The Tree of Freedom has to often be watered with the blood of Patriots in order to keep it alive and growing.” I’m ready, how about you?

Efforts toward Global Gun Control


Keep Your Eye on President Obama and the United Nations and Their Efforts toward Global Gun Control

images-1

If you want to understand the future direction, our world is taking on gun control keep your eye on President Obama and the United Nations. It is no big secret that the United Nations Disarmament Commission would like the world to give up all of our weapons so that international authorities can keep us all safe from the world’s bad actors. President Obama agrees with this global agenda and U.S. participation in the 2013 U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiations scheduled for March 3, 2013.

Again, no big surprise, since the Obama Administration, in 2009, the year the DOJ launched the “Fast and Furious Operation,” chose to overturn the long-standing Bush Administration policy opposing any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty because it was an infringement on U.S sovereignty, laws and generally just an insanely stupid idea.

Conventional and nuclear weapons disarmament is not a new goal for the United Nations or the Global community. In 2000, the United Nations ramped up its small arms disarmament efforts by holding conferences and committees stressing their goal to “negotiate a robust legally binding instrument to establish common standards for international trade in conventional arms.” What the Obama Administration neglects to tell Americans is that the ATT includes small arms too. The United Nations, by their own admission, is attempting to bring “transparency” to global small arms accumulation and stockpiling of ammunition, by requiring the reporting of—which is now voluntary—all participating nation states arms ownership and sales to the United Nations. I will not bore you with the details; I will simply direct you to the following link (www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Register/)so that you can educate yourselves on the key players and policy development history that is taking place at the United Nations. Policies that continue to go under reported.

To put it plainly, the United Nations wants a global standard for arms sales and wants to know: who is making, selling, buying, and owning weapons around our world. Not just big stuff like nuclear submarines and fighter jets but small arms like revolvers as well. They would also like those weapons, indelibly marked, and registered so —according to U.N. officials—international investigators can identify the perpetrator of future treaty breaches, violators of international arms laws or the suppliers of weapons that fuel armed conflicts like drug wars and organized crime. They also want the power to monitor the warehousing of and stock piling of small arms ammunition levels they determine to be unsafe. Ammunition they also want marked for tracing purposes.

Read More:  http://lastresistance.com/

Guns or Not?


Guns or Not? It’s Time to Talk About the Constitution

By / 12 February 2013 / 95 Comments

800px-107th_Rgt_Memorial_5th_Av_cloudy_jehby Michael Schwartz
Clash Daily Guest Commentator

What has to be understood about guns is it doesn’t matter what polls say or what crime statistics show.  If it did matter and it was up to the public, we wouldn’t need an amendment in place to protect gun rights.

The Second Amendment guarantees civilians their right to own and carry guns used by the military.  That is the meaning and that is the purpose.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 1791

“Well regulated” means competent and properly functional.  If it were written today it would probably read “well trained and equipped.”  “Militia” means a fighting force made of civilians who are not professional soldiers.

“Necessary” means today what it meant back then: not an option, but essential.  “Security of a free state” means Americans across the country living under the experiment of self-governance.  “The right of the people” means the same thing throughout the writings of the documents that formed our country when “rights” and “the people” are used.  Rights are unalienable and given by nature or nature’s creator and “the people” are people within the borders of the United States.  “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says.

Because a trained militia is a requirement of a self-governing nation and because a militia is a military force made up of the country’s civilians, weapons used by our military, law-enforcement, and foreign military are exactly what the Second Amendment protects.  That means semi-automatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines that carry 30 rounds of ammunition.

Make the argument that civilians should no longer have this type of access to arms used by the military and have that discussion.  Squirm around and furrow your brow while looking down your nose at all of America telling us that modern society no longer has the need for … blah, blah, etc.  But know that getting rid of the Second Amendment means two things: we are truly no longer a “free state,” with the self-governing experiment being over — and it means repealing and/or replacing the Second Amendment.  Not violating it as the California legislature does and as President Obama suggests.

Fortunately, public opinion and crime statistics both favor the side of the Second Amendment.  But as you debate the subject, be well-versed in the real purpose of the Second Amendment; to ensure that civilians have access to military arms that they can own and carry.  Just in case public opinion is swayed by emotion or the misinformation from media or interests groups, there is an amendment protecting that right.  It is no more a right to take away a civilian’s ability to own an AR style rifle via state law or presidential decree than it is to take away a woman’s right to vote, or an African American’s freedom, or everyone’s right to worship in the way they see fit.

It is time to stop pussyfooting around.  It is time to stop talking about “reasonable restrictions” and “common sense gun laws,” which are both simply code words for “gun ban.”  It is time to stop talking about home defense, hunting, and shooting sports.

It is time to start pointing out the Constitution and law.  I can easily see in Article 5 what it takes to amend the Constitution.  Now show me where in Article 2 the executive branch has that same ability.

Image: Looking west from 5th Ave at WWI memorial for the en:7th New York Militia Regiment (US 107th) at 67th St;a uthor: Jim.henderson; Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

Michael Schwartz is a gun rights activist and the head of the Second Amendment Caucus of the Republican Party of San Diego County.

Police forensic scientist at Newtown hearing


The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Police forensic scientist at Newtown hearing: ‘Assault weapons’ ban won’t work

Patrick Howley
The forensic scientist for the Bridgeport, Conn. Police Department sharply criticized proposed assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans and pointed out the small number of crimes committed by high-capacity weapons in public hearing testimony last week.

Marshall K. Robinson, who said his area of expertise is “firearm and tool mark identification,” testified at the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group, which was convened at the Connecticut State Capitol in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. There he opposed statements from many of the other 1,300 speakers in attendance advocating for banning high-capacity AR-15 and AK-47 firearms.

Robinson pointed out that less than two percent of the firearms he has examined since 1996 that have been linked to violent crime in Bridgeport have been the caliber of AR-15 or AK-47 weapons.

“Since November 1996, I have examined approximately 2,370 firearms. Of that number 36 of them were either .223/5.56 mm or 7.62×39 mm,” Robinson said. “The percentage of those guns was about [1.5 percent].”

“I did further research on homicides and assaults in the years 2006 to 2012 inclusive. Of the 217 such cases, there were 912 bullets and 466 cartridge cases recovered. One assault involved .223 caliber and none involved 7.63×39 mm caliber. The largest number cartridge cases recovered in one case was 37 and that involved two guns. The investigations that involved the recovery of eleven or more cartridge cases was 22. Of the 22 cases, 21 involved 2 or more guns,” Robinson added.

Robinson went on to criticize past gun control measures and argued that new proposals will not work to reduce violent crime in any meaningful way.

“These are real numbers from real cases in a real city police department. This is not something made up or fabricated. High capacity magazines have been ‘banned’ before. It proved nothing and the ban was lifted a few years ago,” he said. “There are many guns in existence, since the 1860s, which hold more than 10 cartridges, the early Winchester lever action rifles, for example, and many tubefeed 22 caliber rifles. There are some modern firearms for which no other magazine exist. What do you propose we do with them?”

“In your infinite wisdom, you outlawed bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and collapsible stocks,” he testified. “In over forty years of being a firearm and tool mark examiner, I have never seen these components inflict any injury whatsoever on any person. In your infinite wisdom, you outlawed fully automatic firearms that have the capability of firing a single shot. Ladies and gentlemen, I really need help with that one.”

“We all agree that the Newtown case is a tragedy. I submit to you that you cannot legislate away insanity, which I think is the root cause of this case,” Robinson said. “Laws must be passed based on research and logical thinking, not on emotions.”

Robinson also works at the state police forensic lab in Meriden, Conn.

Marshall K. Robinson testimony by

The Gathering Storm


The devastation and ignorance being caused by this group of people may forever destroy the fiber and character of a once great nation. At the present rate of duplicity and complacency being displayed by the ignorant and ill-informed American public, it is most probable.
Gathering Storm

More Evidence Of President Obama’s Socialist Ideology


January 26, 2013

By Greg Campbell
TPNN Contributor

Noble Peace Prize nominee and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow is not known for outrageous accusations. Dedicated to his humanitarian work, he has not ventured into the spotlight for a moment other than to write a book about the trouble of China’s one-child policy. That has changed as he has recently divulged information he says he received from a former senior military leader in the Obama Administration.

Garrow announced,

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. ‘The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.’ Those who will not are being removed.”

Dr. Jim Garrow has spent the last 16 years rescuing baby girls from the harsh realities and near-certain death of China’s one-child-per-couple rule. From his efforts to raise awareness of the problem and his willingness to facilitate the adoption of these infants, it is estimated that he has saved 40,000 babies and has been considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. While he has not released who his source is, Garrow has maintained a pretty low profile and seems to not be associated with any fringe ideologies.

It is a bold accusation, but one that fits into a bigger picture. As America becomes, arguably, more and more polarized, states have discussed secession and state and county officials all across the country have publicly claimed that they will refuse to enforce executive orders that violate the Second Amendment.

Whether one agrees that America should be so polarized or not, the fact remains that this revelation comes at a time when America is deeply divided on a variety of issues ranging from gun rights to the basic question of how to solve any one of our fiscal crises. With such deep divides, the issue of secession has been discussed and people all across the country have expressed worry at a looming federal presence.

Added to the volatile mix of ideologies is the recent executive orders that were aimed at enacting gun control measures and the near-constant threat of outright bans on many firearms. Such speculation has fueled dissent and discussion amongst mainstream Americans as to how far the government ought to be allowed to go.

The Washington Free Beacon recently reported that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by President Obama and will leave his post in March. While unwilling to divulge the source, Garrow stated, “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

If what Garrow says is true, than this is sure to rouse anger and distrust from conservatives across the country who have accused the president of exceeding his authority on numerous occasions and have voiced concern over sweeping policies that are of dubious legalities. If Obama is preparing to stock his inner-circle with only those that will follow his orders beyond what should rightfully be expected from soldiers who have sworn to protect this nation, than America may see a turbulent four years.

The true irony of Obama’s presidency is that while reports such as the aforementioned have surfaced and as drone attacks continue across the globe and families mourn the loved ones lost as a result of the Justice Department’s flood of weapons to Mexican cartels, President Obama actually received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

Gun Control Laws Won’t Work


Joe Biden: Gun Control Laws Won’t Work, But We’ve Got To Do Something

bidenAh yes, the wisdom of liberal Uncle Joe Biden, who also happens to be our Vice President. Biden made a statement to reporters on Thursday afternoon after having lunch with Democrat Senators at the Capitol. He basically said that even though they knew that nothing that they do will alter or even eliminate mass shootings, that they would have to still try and do something, ie. implement more gun control laws.

“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now,” he told the group of reporters.

“But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives,” he said.

What’s makes Biden’s comments somewhat hilarious is the fact that Politico reported that a staffer tried to stop the gaffe master. “As a staffer tried unsuccessfully to cut Biden off repeatedly, the vice president argued to reporters that none of the proposals would infringe on constitutional rights.” Ginger Gibson wrote.

Biden had been on the Hill to sell Obama’s gun laws as introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

“I’m not saying there’s an absolute consensus on all these things,” Biden continued, “but there is a sea change, a sea change in the attitudes of the American people. I believe the American people will not understand — and I know that everyone in that caucus understands — they won’t understand if we don’t act.”

“The visual image of those 20 innocent children being riddled with bullets has, has absolutely, not only traumatized the nation, but it has caused– like the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

While he wants to point to the support of evangelical Christians, a group of people I happen to be associated with, but not in agreement with on this issue, one must be wary of many of today’s “evangelical Christians,” who are all about feeling and emotions rather than truth. After all this is how this administration and the liberals have been selling their attack on the Second Amendment. They have been employing the emotional tactic.

I’d say, if you know that legislating more gun laws does not and will not stop shootings by criminals, then what is the point of implementing them? There can only be one reason I see and that is to eventually take the steps to not only remove these weapons from gun stores, but eventually to eliminate them from gun owners.

One More Step Toward Collectivism/Socialism


DHS Raids Gun Collector – Confiscates Nearly 1,500 Guns – No Charges Filed

20130202-103003.jpgOn Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security, along with a SWAT team and Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputies raided the home of Robert Adams in Albuquerque, New Mexico and, according to a federal search warrant affidavit the raid seized nearly 1,500 firearms from the man’s home and business. However, no charges have been filed against him, despite the fact that court documents reveal that agents had been watching Adams for years.

By Wednesday afternoon dozens of rifles were hauled out of the house, bagged as evidence and laid out on the lawn.

According to search warrants that were filed on Thursday Homeland Security Investigations confiscated nearly 900 firearms from Adams’ home, 548 handguns and 317 rifles. They also seized 599 pistols and revolvers from his office.

Neighbors say that he was a firearms collector and some indicated that he was also a licensed gun seller. No confirmation of that has been forthcoming.

While having been watched for years and no charges filed as they seized Adam’s firearms, Federal investigators are saying that they are investigating him for gun smuggling, tax evasion, violating importation laws.

KRQE reports,

Court documents reveal federal agents were watching Adams for years and that some documentation was missing “to determine to whom Adams [was] selling or exporting his firearms.”

The guns were also not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes, investigators alleged.

However, a bigger concern is that no markings on the guns and missing documents mean the guns are not traceable by law enforcement.

The search warrant also said Adams was investigated in Canada for keeping about 80 illegal guns in a storage unit. U.S. agents worked with Canadian police on that case.

Kurt Nimmo points out, “New Mexico does not regulate or specifically restrict the possession of firearms. Owners are not required to register or license firearms with the state.

“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms,” Article 2, Section 6 of the state constitution reads.

“Gun collectors are protected under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986,” Nimmo writes. “The law states that a firearms dealer is defined as a person who is selling guns for profit or livelihood. Unlicensed individuals are allowed to sell firearms from their private collection without performing a background check on the buyer.”

Something seriously smells here. How can you be investigated for years, yet upon serving a search warrant you don’t put forth any charges against a man when you confiscate nearly 1,500 firearms? I wish they had taken this kind of approach to the Obama Justice Department’s gunwalking program that trafficked nearly 2,500 firearms across the border into Mexico that has left hundreds dead. No one is claiming that the firearms that Adams had were used in any crime!

So much for the Obama administration’s claims that they aren’t against gun collectors. Sports shooters and hunters, you’re up next.

Armed Guard Disarms Shooter


Bret BART

UPDATE: Armed Guard Disarms Shooter At Atlanta Middle School

 by AWR Hawkins 31 Jan 2013

Update: When news broke that a 14-year old student had been shot at an Atlanta middle school on the morning of Jan. 31, reports did not mention that the shooter had been disarmed by an armed guard at the school. But Atlanta Police Chief George Turner is now saying the shooter was in fact disarmed by an armed guard working at the school.  

In other words, today’s shooting proves the point the NRA has been emphasizing since Sandy Hook Elementary–“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

What is now known is that the shooter was another student, who is in custody, and the victim was a male student who was shot in the neck. The injuries did not appear to be life-threatening, and the victim was alert and conscious when medical personnel arrived on the scene.

Unlike shootings in other “gun free zones”–this scope of this shooting was greatly diminished because an armed guard was in the school. Can we learn a lesson from this?

NOTE: This article originally described the shooting victim as a female, which later news reports have contradicted.

Purposely Vague Language


by

Purposely Vague Language in New Gun Rules Could Outlaw all Guns

PistolThe best way to get what you want out of a law is to make it vague. A vague law is a law that needs to be interpreted. Since no one is devoid of presuppositions, the person or persons interpreting the law will interpret it in terms of his or her worldview.

Look what our politicians have done with the phrase “general welfare.” Even though the Constitution is specific about what constitutes general welfare (there’s a semicolon after the phrase with a list that follows defining the meaning of the phrase), lawmakers have turned it into a wax nose to be shaped by wealth confiscation and wealth redistribution policies.

Now we come to the Dianne Feinstein bill that would allow numerous firearms. The descriptions of these guns, if interpreted by judges who are anti-Second Amendment advocates, could spell disaster for gun ownership.

Consider this from WND:

“Alan Korwin is a nationally recognized expert resource on the issue of gun laws, and runs Bloomfield Press, which is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.

“He said if the plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is made law, ‘any semiautomatic firearm which uses a magazine – handgun, rifle or shotgun – equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned.’”

What is a “semiautomatic firearm”? A semiautomatic firearm is a weapon that requires the shooter to squeeze the trigger in order to fire a bullet. One trigger pull equals one bullet fired. A full automatic weapon shoots in burst of bullets that are fired by a single squeeze of the trigger.

A rifle that shoots a single bullet with a single squeeze of the trigger is a semiautomatic weapon, and so is one that looks like an “assault weapon.” They each require the same action. One just looks more ominous than the other.

Pistols are semi-automatic weapons. A clip that holds 7 bullets requires 7 pulls of the trigger to fire all 7 bullets.

If a single shot gun is a semiautomatic weapon, then this would include pistols. Since pistols have, by definition, a “pistol grip,” then it’s possible that handguns could be banned by some court based on the planned vagaries of the law.

We know that Dianne Feinstein and other liberals would like to ban all weapons. They know they can’t do it at the present time. They are long-term strategists. They’ve been pushing for universal health care for nearly 100 years, and they finally got it. The 16th Amendment was sold as a tax only on the wealthiest among us. You’ve seen where that got us. It’s no different on gun legislation.

‘Tyranny By Executive Order’


RED FLAG

http://redflagnews.com/

EXCLUSIVE: What the hell just happened? ‘Tyranny By Executive Order’ |

by Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D

What the hell just happened? That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. At first glance it appeared to be a case of Obama shamelessly using the deaths of innocents, and some live children as a backdrop, to push for the passage of radical gun control measures by Congress. Most of these have no chance of passing, yet, Obama’s signing of Executive orders initiating 23 so called Executive actions on gun control seemed like an afterthought.

Unfortunately, that is the real story, but it is generally being overlooked. The fact is that with a few strokes of his pen Obama set up the mechanisms he will personally use to not only destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but also the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. It will not matter what Congress does, Obama can and will act on his own, using these Executive actions, and will be violating both the Constitution and his oath of office when he does it.

Here are the sections of the Executive Order that he will use:

“1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”

What exactly is relevant data? Does it include our medical records obtained through Obamacare, our tax returns, our political affiliations, our military background, and our credit history? I suggest that all of the above, even if it violates our fourth Amendment right to privacy will now be relevant data for determining if we are allowed to purchase a firearm.

“2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”

This should be read in conjunction with section 16 of the order that says:

“16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

One of the few amendments successfully placed in Obamacare by conservatives does appear to prohibit doctors from asking such questions. Yet, with these two Executive actions, Obama is illegally amending an act of Congress and setting up a procedure for him to force doctors to gain information from patients about gun ownership, and to get our medical history.

Section 3 of Obama’s order states:

“3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.”

Once again, what does this mean? What information does the Federal government want from the states? Copies of state personal and business income tax returns or court records of divorce and child custody cases are possibilities that come to mind as well as our voter registrations showing our party affiliations. How does any of this figure into our right to purchase a firearm?

One of the most dangerous and troubling sections of the Obama order in Section 4 that states:

“4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

This section directs Eric Holder, the architect of Operation Fast and Furious that illegally transferred several thousand semi automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and several U.S. border patrol agents, to now add people indiscriminately to the list of Americans ineligible to purchase firearms. Who might be added to the list?

Well, let’s look at the record of the Obama administration. Shortly after being appointed as the Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent a list of potential domestic terrorists to law enforcement agencies around the country. The list included individuals who were pro-life, who supported the Second Amendment, who had Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, and most disturbing, all members of the military returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The list has recently been supplemented to include individuals who hoard more than a week’s supply of food and water, and those who support individual liberties and oppose big government. I belong on most of these lists and I suspect that Eric Holder will be adding all of us to the list of dangerous people not qualified to own guns. In other words, you will no longer have to be a convicted felon or mentally ill to make the list; you will qualify simply by being an American patriot.

This is not a conspiracy theory, at the United States Justice Foundation we are seeing increasing evidence that military veterans are being specifically targeted by the Obama administration when it comes to prohibitions against purchasing firearms. Any veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in danger of being banned from owning a firearm. Even those veterans suffering from mild depression are being added. None of these conditions constitute a mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

However, in Obamaland veterans who took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, are definitely considered a threat to the new Fuehrer and must not be allowed to own firearms.

If we skip to Section 6 of the order we get a good idea of Obama’s real intentions when it comes to gun control. That sections states:

“6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

This is particularly interesting because one of the legislative proposals is to require universal background check requirements for any firearm transfer even between private citizens. In other words, you can’t sell your firearm or even give it to someone as a gift without Federal government approval. It is doubtful that this proposal will pass in the House of Representatives, yet Obama is already setting up the mechanism for enforcing the requirement. That is a clear signal that he doesn’t care what Congress does, he is going to violate the Constitution and bypass the Legislative branch in order to push his agenda to disarm the American people. I suspect he will ultimately use Executive orders to ban many weapons including most rifles and pistols.

There are numerous other actions dictated in the Obama order, but I think you get the idea. Our Second Amendment right is going to be taken from us for whatever reasons Obama decides. The simple act of opposing these actions can cause the Attorney General to place you on the list of “dangerous people”. Our privacy will be violated and all of this will be done without due process of law. That is what just happened.

Number Of Nation’s Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs


January 24, 2013

From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In New Mexico, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff’s in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:

  • Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, “I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment,” in a letter to Coos County citizens.
  • Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
  • In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: “I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective.”
  • Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: “Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office.”
  • Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.

In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: “I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation.”

A letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein from Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California states: “Our founding fathers got it right and many politicians are getting it wrong.”

 

In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: “I will…rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

At a town hall meeting, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told citizens “you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County.”

Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, “I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won’t happen.”

In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: “Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law,” Snyder said.

For a list of more sheriffs who are standing up against new gun regulations, please click here.

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab


Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

William F. Jasper
New American
Jan 25, 2013

It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.

In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”

“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”

The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”

Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.

As The New American reported recently, Communist China’s ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:

The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.

More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:

Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.

“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”

Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!

And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.

Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s “Voice of Russia” program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.

Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.

The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.

“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.

We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.

Tag Cloud