URGENT: JOHN KERRY COMMITS U.S. TO UNITED NATIONS SMALL ARMS TREATY

RELATED POSTS:

RED ALERT: UNITED NATIONS PASSES SWEEPING INTERNATIONAL ARMS REGULATION VIEWED BY SOME AS SECOND AMENDMENT OVERRIDE

CONNECTICUT PASSES SWEEPING GUN LAWS…STATE DECIDES WHO CAN BUY GUNS, AMMUNITION…MORE THAN 100 WEAPON TYPES BANNED

NEXT ASSAULT ON 2ND AMENDMENT: MANDATORY LIABILITY INSURANCE

VETERAN’S GUNS CONFISCATED AFTER FORCED ‘PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION’

CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS CONSIDER REGULATING, TAXING AMMUNITION

-

MARCH 20, 2013

U.S. Rights: As the world body meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week.

Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.

Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

We have noted that a paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been “misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons.”

Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a “misuse?”

“We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” Secretary of State Kerry tried to reassure us — even as he represents an administration that seeks to ban weapons on their scary appearance rather than their genuine lethality, thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with deer-hunting rather than British tyranny in mind, and would be happy if the entire U.S. were a “gun-free zone.”

As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part of the “arms trade” to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new firearms market in the U.S.

“Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be ‘appropriate measures,’ an Administration could restrict imports by redefining what qualifies as a ‘sporting’ firearm — the definition of which is left completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” Heritage reports.

The ATT, Heritage warns, “could create a national registry (initially) limited to imported firearms. It could impose new requirements on importers of firearms, or parts and components of firearms, for example, by requiring them to provide the identity of the final end user.. .”

Restrictions on imports might be extended to ammunition as well.

Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal “places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality” and represents a threat to U.S. national security.

Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.

Interestingly, just as the world’s worst human rights violators have sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America’s enemies, was elected to a top position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York last July.

The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.

The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.

Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won’t infringe on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t reassure us.

-

SENATE TO VOTE DOWN WEAPONS BAN BUT UNITED NATIONS ARMS  TRADE TREATY IS BACK

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 20, 2013

According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013” lacks backing in the Senate in order to gain approval. In part, the list of weapons that will be banned is the problem. The reemergence of the original assault weapons ban of 1994 is recognized as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

The “Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers” bill is also barely treading water.

On Capitol Hill, the measures to strengthen school safety seem to be passable without opposition.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have formed school safety measures, allocated federal funding for such measures and training to teach school officials and bus drivers to the vulnerabilities concerning school campuses.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has formed the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) will be used to purchase “equipment, training, and other efforts to support school security.”

DHS, FEMA and National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) are working with public school districts under the US Department of Education (DoE) to develop safety guidelines and make sure they are adhered to under the Incident Command System (ICS) for schools.

Senator Dianne Feinstein maintains that she will introduce her assault weapons ban as an amendment to keep the legislation in play on the Senate floor.

Feinstein said: “Obviously I’m very disappointed…. The enemies on this are very powerful. I’ve known that all my life.”

At the UN Headquarters in New York, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has become the topic of discussion as nations have come together to decide whether or not individual sovereignty will supersede international law with regard to gun ownership.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) believes that the ATT will override American’s right to bear arms and outlaw personal firearms ownership for the sake of keeping civilian populations safe.

Michelle A. Ringuette, chief of campaigns and programs at Amnesty International USA, a UN non-governmental organization (NGO), states: “This treaty is a common-sense alignment of the interests of governments, law-abiding citizens and individuals all over the world, who deserve the right to live free from harm. Any step toward restraining the illicit sale and transfer of weapons used to commit horrific crimes is a good move forward, and the world could use a lot more steps in the direction of ending human rights abuses.”

John Kerry, Secretary of State, has indicated that the Obama administration will support the ATT. Kerry said: “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability.”

The NRA have gathered members of the World Forum on Shooting Activities, an international organization consisting of gun rights activists and manufacturers who will speak out against the ATT at the UN.

Tom Mason, executive secretary of WFSA explains: “What we really object to is the inclusion of civilian firearms within the scope of the ATT. This is a treaty that really needs to address the transfer of large numbers of military weapons that leads to human rights abuses. We have submitted language that you can define what a civilian firearm is.”

Last June Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State announced that the Obama administration is working with the UN to approve, through the US Congress; the ATT. Clinton affirmed that the US would facilitate talks with the UN in the Conference on the ATT, as long as it “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”

The Obama administration is in full support of the ATT. Both Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN and Clinton said in a letter that they “strongly urge the United States to take a leadership role in pushing for a strong, verifiable Arms Trade Treaty.”

The ATT will empower the UN to literally force the US government to:

• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans
• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the US government to keep theirs
• Ban trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic guns
• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America

While using the illegal arms market as their platform of reform, the UN aims to override sovereign nations and their citizen’s rights to own firearms.

The current draft of the ATT states that governments must obtain UN approval before selling arms to a country where there is a “substantial risk of a serious violation” of human rights. This provision directly affects Russia and Syria, as they are involved in a lucrative arms trade relationship.

In 2010, the US began talks with the UN regarding the initial drafting of the ATT.

With perfect globalist rhetoric, the UN claims that it is “not pursuing a global treaty to ban gun ownership by civilians.” But rather a “tightening controls over the international import, export and transfers of conventional arms, because without such controls it is easier for weapons to be diverted from the legal trade into the illegal market, and into the hands of terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal cartels.”

When talks concerning the global gun grab began in 2010, the US claimed to “want a treaty that will prevent, or at least significantly impede, illicit trade in conventional weapons by reinforcing national commitments and supplementing those obligations, thereby elevating the degree to which the worldwide trade in conventional arms is conducted in a lawful, transparent, and accountable manner.”

In 2011, the UN’s General Assembly recognized “that disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation is essential”, meaning citizens could no longer own firearms if there were to be peace in the world.

However, the UN sees the armory of governments as an “effective national control”. To ensure the UN is able to take gun rights away from every citizen in ever country they have devised this treaty to influence “national legislation, regulations and procures on the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology” for the maintenance of international peace and security.

-

SENATE VOTES TO KEEP U.S. OUT OF UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
New American
March 24, 2013

In the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

By a vote of 53-46, the Senate passed the amendment to the budget bill sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

This reporter is in New York covering the negotiations at the UN aimed at drafting a treaty calling for the eradication of small arms trade, sale, and transfer by anyone other than UN-approved governments.

“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe before the vote on his amendment. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”

According to a story in The Hill, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) proposed his own amendment “that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights.” Leahy’s amendment also passed.

A similar resolution sponsored by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) is currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Moran’s measure declares that it is the sense of Congress that:

the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty; and

until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.

Representative Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) has offered a companion measure in the House.

Both the Moran and Kelly resolutions declare that the Arms Trade Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

The measures also points out that UN gun grab “fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment.”

As The New American has reported from the United Nations last week, negotiators at the Arms Trade Treaty conference, are planning to effectively repeal the Second Amendment by replacing the Constitution with the UN Charter and by replacing God with government as the source of all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Principally, this treaty would eradicate the Second Amendment in two ways: First, by mandating that state signatories create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers, sellers, and traders; second, by making it nearly impossible for civilians to purchase ammunition.

The most egregious affront to the sovereignty of the United States is that there is not a single word in the Arms Trade Treaty protecting the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the latest draft of the proposed agreement only recognizes private ownership of firearms for “recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities.” This is a significant and unacceptable infringement on the rights protected by the Second Amendment.

In truth, however, Americans needn’t to look to an unaccountable, unelected body of globalist bureaucrats for reaffirmation of the rights already guaranteed by our Constitution.

While it is unlikely that the Senate would ratify the treaty in its present form (67 senators would have to vote to approve it), when it comes to disarming citizens of this country, President Obama has shown that he will not be deterred by congressional inaction or by constitutional limits on his authority.

Although in reality, treaties that violate the Constitution are prima facie null, void, of no legal effect, the Supreme Court has come down on both sides of the supremacy issue.

In a pair of contradictory decisions, the Supreme Court has held that “No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power” (Missouri v. Holland) and “constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty” (Reid v. Covert).

This conflict of cases creates a situation where, as Alan Korwin wrote in 2012 at the time of the previous round of negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty, “While some of us would surely and boldly draw the lines where they are ‘supposed’ to be, i.e., in line with our natural and historic rights, the forces aligned against the Second Amendment have no problem arguing vigorously for its destruction, regardless of any of these details, and therein lies the greatest threat we face.”

It would appear that regarding the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms, the states will be required to uphold the liberties protected by our Constitution in the face of federal collusion with the international forces of civilian disarmament.

The latest round of Arms Trade Treaty negotiations are scheduled to wrap up on March 28. Should the U.S. delegation agree to participate in the agreement (and President Obama has instructed them to do so), the treaty will be sent to the Senate for consideration.

Americans who refuse to allow the UN to seize their guns and ammo still have time to contact their senators and remind them of the oath they took to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” including the right to keep and bear arms.

-

SENATE VOTES TO MANDATE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT: TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 25, 2013

Senator James Inhofe proposed two amendments into the Senate Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014 to restrict the US government’s participation in international efforts to disarm sovereign nations.

Inhofe wants to protect Americans from threats to the 2nd Amendment by the UN and the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

Inhofe said: “The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is another attempt by internationalists to limit and infringe upon America’s sovereignty. Such a treaty would require the United States to implement laws as required by the treaty, instead of the national controls that are currently in place. This would also disrupt diplomatic and national security efforts by preventing our government from assisting allies like Taiwan, South Korea, or Israel when they require assistance. I will continue to mount strong opposition to any effort by Sec. Kerry and the State Department to ratify this treaty.”

These amendments were passed 53-46 in the Senate.

-

-

Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposal to prevent the US from violating the 2nd Amendment with participation in the ATT; this amendment was also approved.

This week, on March 28th, the National Day to Demand Action is being presented by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This campaign calls for the public to “get involved right now by committing to call your Senators” and assert that Congress “end gun violence”.

On the website, visitors are encouraged to sign up to get a “text message reminder” and the phone number of their Senator. They claim that “an overwhelming majority of Americans support reform, but to make sure that reform is meaningful we need Congress to pass the strongest possible legislation.”

Meanwhile Vice President Joe Biden is imploring Congress to pass gun control legislation such as Senator Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013” and the “Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers”.

Biden used the tragedy at Sandy Hook to invoke emotion from the crowd and said: “For all those who say we shouldn’t and can’t ban assault weapons. How can they say that? Take a look at those 20 beautiful babies. Think about Newtown. Think about how many of these children or teachers may be alive today had he had to reload three times as many times as he did.”

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee has approved a bill for the permission of open carry permits of weapons and transportation of weapons for residents who hunt and carry their guns in their cars.

State Representative JR Claeys stated that “[the current law] would allow for you to travel on the interstate and go from being a law abiding citizen to a felon.”

Interestingly, he proposal outlines that guns cannot be carried openly at the State Capital.

Another bill was introduced earlier that allowed for the concealed carry of firearms at schools and public buildings.

While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continue to purchase billions of jackets hollow point bullets, local law enforcement are being forced to ration their bullets because of an anticipated ammunition shortage.

Correspondingly, retailers have increased the price of ammunition available to the public for purchase. This situation has caused citizens to want the ammunition all the more.

Jody Mays, training coordinator for the Hamilton Country Sheriff Department said: “The concern over firearms availability and ammunition availability and potentials of gun control certainly has impacted the availability of ammunition purchased locally.”

Dayne Pryor, police chief for Rollingwood Police Department in Austin, Texas said that there is a waiting list for AR-15s and ammunition for officers.

The purveying question in alternative media is: what is DHS planning to do with all that ammunition?

Mainstream media have come to the table to ask for a “national conversation” about these solicitations for over 1.6 billion rounds.

In 1993 then Attorney General Janet Reno said: “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

-

-

CONGRESS REJECTS UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY BEFORE THE FINAL DRAFT WAS COMPLETE

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 28, 2013

The UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference currently being held in New York is deciding on “nine essential items for a bulletproof treaty.” While the delegates agree on an international mandate to restrict gun trafficking, the terms of this document will effectively destroy the 2nd Amendment in the US and further restrict gun ownership rights in other sovereign nations.

Outlining the issue with international mandate, the UN says that “the ready availability of weapons and ammunition has led to human suffering, political repression, crime and terror among civilian populations. Irresponsible transfers of conventional weapons can destabilize security in a region, enable the violation of Security Council arms embargoes and contribute to human rights abuses. Importantly, investment is discouraged and development disrupted in countries experiencing conflict and high levels of violence, which also affect their ability to attain the Millennium Development Goals.”

As the “peacekeeper” the UN decries the difficulties in “lax controls on the arms trade” which leads to disruptions in “delivering food aid, improving public health, building safer cities, protecting refugees, eradicating poverty or fighting crime and terrorism.”

In the ATT, the UN defines “all conventional arms ” as “munitions, and parts and components [sic].” To further UN control over gun owners, the treaty explicitly states that “all types of arms trade” should be eradicated which includes private sales of guns whether directly by owner or at a gun show.

This restriction also includes ammunition, gun parts, magazines; as well as the firearm itself. The ATT definition of control arms and this restriction would outlaw all non-federalized forms of gun transfer which would include prison terms as punishment to deter “violators”.

Under possibility of war and the firearm being used to commit war crimes, non-federalized gun transfers cannot be legal under the ATT. Considering America was outlined as a battlefield by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), this provision includes that gun owners in the US have the potential of violating this term simply be virtue of where we live.

Transfer of firearms, parts and ammunition would require “robust criteria” that has international humanitarian based foundations so that nations can force their respective lawmakers to abide by these terms under the guise that this will prevent “organized crime, corrupt practice[s] and gender-based violence and violence against children.”

Protesters organized by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have gathered to protest the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans in favor of the ATT as a way of making sure that gun restriction is carried out.

Salil Shetty, secretary general of Amnesty International said: “We are still very hopeful that we’ll end up with a treaty. The important thing is [that the Arms Trade Treaty must] protect human lives and protect human rights. We will get a treaty, the question is ‘how good is it, how strong is it?’ That’s a bit up in the air right now.”

Shetty argues that “the U.S. is making is a very practical one, saying that it’s very difficult to track [things like ammunition]. But there are many governments that produce ammunition, and they’re not blocking [it from being included in the treaty].”

The UN uses human rights groups to gather support from the public for their tyrannical dictatorship over sovereign nations.

These organizations are calling on the US government to support the ATT as a provision in foreign policy which would affect the success of missions carried out by John Kerry, Secretary of State. Mainstream media is pushing alongside these NGOs to have the ATT ratified within the US to use against those who “commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights, the laws of war, or acts of terrorism.”

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president for the National Rifle Association, explains: “We have watched [the treaty] with increasing concern and, one year ago, I delivered … our objections to including civilian arms in the ATT. I said then, and I will repeat now, that the only way to address NRA’s objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty.”

Senator Jerry Moran and House Representative Mike Kelly (along with others) are championing resolution that is gaining support in the House and Senate. Congress as a whole is coming together to admonish President Obama not to comply with the ATT, violently opposing its ratification within the US federal government and rejecting its legal stance over the laws of our sovereign nation.

Senator Jim Inhofe submitted an amendment to the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) that empowered the Congress to restrict funding to the redaction of the 2nd Amendment and effectively prevent the US government from entering into the ATT. This amendment and budget was approved.

The Rand Paul dog-and-pony show along with his cohorts on Capitol Hill is making waves against gun control legislation and “will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any addition gun restrictions.”

In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Congressional representatives are “prepared to use any procedural means necessary to prevent stricter gun control laws.”

-

URGENT: HILLARY CLINTON SIGNS UNITED NATIONS SMALL ARMS TREATY

SEPTEMBER 22, 2013

-

—

AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY: U.S. AGREES TO TIMETABLE FOR UNITED NATIONS GUN BAN

The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms. 
Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.

While we’re all watching the gulf: Hillary signs UN Small Arms Treaty

URGENT: Hillary Clinton Signs UN Small Arms Treaty

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

Reuters) – The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”

“Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,” Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration’s decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

“The shift in position by the world’s biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers,” Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”

“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of “dictators and terrorists” to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

.

Below is the text in full, as it has been proposed and released. Any changes in the signed version will be noted when that time comes:

————————

UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY TEXT

PREAMBLE

The States Parties to this Treaty.

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;

Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;

Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;

Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;

Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.

Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;

Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;

Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;

Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;

Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;

Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;

Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;

Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and

16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:

Principles

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

Article 1
Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market or to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

- For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

- To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

In order to:

- Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;

- Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;

- Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

Article 2

- A. Covered Items

- 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

- a. Battle Tanks

- b. Armored combat vehicles

- c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

- d. Combat aircraft

- e. Attack helicopters

- f. Warships

- g. Missiles and missile launchers

- h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

- 2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

- 3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

- 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

- B. Covered Activities

- 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

- 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

Article 3
Prohibited Transfers

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Article 4
National Assessment

Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:

Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:

Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
Contribute to peace and security;
Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;

In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.

5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.

Article 5
Additional Obligations

Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
being diverted to the illicit market;
be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
become subject to corrupt practices; or
adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

Article 6
General Implementation

Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;

The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;

Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.

State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users. All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.

If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

Article 7
Export

Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.

Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export. Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.

Article 8
Import

Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.

State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty. State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.

Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.

Article 9
Brokering

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

Article 10
Transit and Transshipment

Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;

Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;

Article 11
Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.

Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.

States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.

Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.

Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

ARTICLE 12 
ENFORCEMENT

Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.

ARTICLE 13
IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT

This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.

ARTICLE 14
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.

States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.

4. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.

5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.

Article 15
International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.

6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.

7. At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty. Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.

8. References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.

Article 17
Entry into Force

This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.

For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.

For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.

Article 18
Withdrawal and Duration

This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary. The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.

A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.

Article 19
Reservations

Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

Article 20
Amendments

At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.

Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.

Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.

A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

Article 21
Conference of States Parties

The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

The Conference of States Parties shall:
a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR

b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;

c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;

d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;

e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

Article 22
Dispute Settlement

States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty

States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.

Article 24
Relationship with other instruments

States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.

Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

-

-

-

-

“I see a whole army of my countryman, here in defiance of tyranny.  You’ve come to fight as free men, and free men you are.  What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die; run, and you’ll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, how many of you would be willing to trade all the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they’ll never take our freedom! – William Wallace leader during the Wars of Scottish Independence

-

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” ― Dr. Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

-

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” – President George Washington

-

CHARLTON HESTON: ‘FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!’

-

-

CNSNews.com – Charlton Heston, the former actor and president of the National Rifle Association who died in 2008, gave a speech in 2000 in defense of the Second Amendment, ending with his oft-repeated and now famous phrase, “From my cold, dead hands!” The phrase has since become synonymous with gun rights in America.

Heston was referring to attempts by anti-gun organizations and certain liberals, particularly then-Vice President Al Gore, to further restrict Americans’ right to own firearms.

In his May 20, 2000 speech at the 129th NRA Convention in Charlotte, N.C., Heston said, “When ordinary hands can possess such an extraordinary instrument,  that symbolizes the full measure of human dignity and liberty. That’s why those five words issue an irresistible call to us all, and we muster.”

Then holding up a replica of a 19th century Sharps rifle, Heston continued, “So as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed — and especially for you, Mister Gore: From my cold, dead hands!”

Heston was NRA president from 1998 to 2003, at which time he resigned for health reasons. He died on Apr. 5, 2008. He had starred in such popular films as The Ten Commandments,  Touch of Evil, Planet of the Apes, and Ben-Hur, for which he won the best actor Academy Award.

-

AARON DYKES: WHAT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

-

Second Amendment — The right to keep and bear arms.  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.

-

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

- Theodore Roosevelt “Citizenship in a Republic,” Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

-

KIRA DAVIS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com A friend sent me a video, and I thought you all should take a few minutes and watch it.  It is a YouTube presentation about the 2nd Amendment from a young black female named Kira Davis.  She has a YouTube Channel that has more than 1 million views.  After you see her 2nd Amendment presentation, you will understand why.  I have long said if any group of Americans should support the U.S. Constitution, it is the African American community.  The Constitution provided the basis of all civil rights in this country. The major Constitutional premise of “Equal protection under the law” made it possible for the nation to evolve past slavery and racism.  What protects those rights is the 2nd Amendment.  There was a time in this country when blacks were forbidden from reading, let alone from having a firearm.  Kira Davis points this out perfectly.  Thank God for the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

-

WARNING: POLITICIANS – WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO DISARM US

It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unbendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to-and dependence upon – the organs of a parental state.

A disarmed population will lose-either piecemeal or in one sweeping act – those basic rights for which the citizens of America gave their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor over 200 years ago.

We will not disarm. The right to self-protection, the internal directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man, is the most fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against the predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all – those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

We will not disarm. Not in the face of robbers, rapists, and murderers who prey upon our families and friends; nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order-those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

• We will not surrender our handguns.
• We will not surrender our hunting arms.
• And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An armed citizenry, the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms – is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpation.

An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence.

Should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of, may God forbid it, throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties.

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens. Now-today-we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are times when our government is demanding – in the guise of measures for the common good – the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense.

These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility-to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights. Legislators, justices and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land-the Constitution.

They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one’s fellow citizens will also disarm one’s parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children and children’s children. They must bear in mind that there are good citizens who, taking heed of George Washington’s belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people, will not passively allow these teeth to be torn out.

There are good citizens who, taking heed of Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, will surrender not one of their rights. Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on the face of this planet. The right to keep and bear arms is the tap root of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world’s dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today. Today is a critical moment in our history.

Will we Americans passively lie down before a government that has grown disdainful of its best citizens? Or will we again declare, “We are the government, government functions at our behest, and it may not rescind our sacred rights?”

Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our masters? Or will we place our faith in the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and remember the words and deeds of the daring, far-seeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play?

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails?

Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era-which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America-and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we be deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the words of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.

Legislators: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic – the right to bear arms.

Justices: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Lawmen: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and to protect-not to oppress, to disarm and to make helpless your countrymen. To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they ever have been through history. For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable.

For these reasons we must now make known: We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. We Will Not Disarm.

-

OBAMA’S EX-SECRET SERVICE AGENT: IT’S NOT GUN CONTROL…IT’S PEOPLE CONTROL

-

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: NATIONWIDE AMMO SHORTAGE SO SEVERE THAT EVEN POLICE CAN’T BUY BULLETS; AMMO RATIONING IMMINENT

Mike Adams
Natural News
January 11, 2013

One of the great myths of modern society is that the police are heavily armed and have both ammo and personnel in huge numbers. In reality, it’s quite the opposite: police and sheriffs are dangerously under-staffed all across the country in nearly every city and town. Furthermore, severe budget cuts have left law enforcement with dwindling ammunition supplies. In some departments, it’s so bad that nearly the only ammo available is what officers are carrying on their duty belts.

And now it has just gotten far worse.

Thanks to outrageous Sandy Hook fear mongering by the mainstream media and political operatives like Feinstein, Obama, Cuomo and others, the American people have been rushing out to buy up every bullet, every rifle, every handgun and very nearly every gun-related product in the country. This is all because people like Biden, Obama and Feinstein are openly declaring war on the Second Amendment and threatening to outlaw or restrict firearms, magazines and ammunition.

“Channel 2 Action News has learned local police departments cannot get their hands on the ammunition they need,” reports WSBTV in Atlanta.

WSBTV continues:

“There’s been more demand for ammunition than there’s ever been,” reports Jay Wallace, owner of Smyrna Police Distributors in Cobb County. Wallace is now worried some departments could have to wait up to a year for factories to ship certain kinds of rounds in bulk. Leaders with most [police] departments … said they’re prepared to handle short shortages, but not long-term. “We’re going be starting to get very concerned at the six-month level if that’s all we have in stock, because then we have to start planning and rationing.

Rationing? Yep. It’s here already, and the global debt collapse hasn’t even begun yet!

Ammunition inventory statusThe mass rush by citizens to purchase ammunition ahead of an Obama / Biden unconstitutional (and unlawful) executive order banning such sales has resulted in the near-depletion of available ammunition as follows:

• Rifle rounds are completely gone everywhere.
• Shotgun shells are somewhat more available but still limited.
• Handgun rounds are limited and becoming difficult to find.
• 22LR rounds are completely gone. Lesser-known varmint rounds such as .17 HMR are still available.

The backlog of ammunition demand now exceeds one year. The backlog demand for rifle magazines now exceeds one million units. The demand for rifles themselves has reached record levels, with a one-year backlog on production just to meet present-day demand.

Here are some of the messages you’ll see across the internet right now at online retailers’ websites:

Cheaper Than Dirt:
Consumer reaction to the political rhetoric after the shooting in CT caused a rush of online orders at Cheaper Than Dirt! which led to the largest backlog in the company’s history. Ammunition and shooting accessories orders more than tripled, resulting in week-long shipping delays. The past three weeks have been spent catching up on the tremendous backlog of orders, training additional staff and increasing inventory back to acceptable levels. …firearms that are in high demand are not currently available from manufacturers due to the lack of inventory. This includes most modern sporting rifles.

Ammo To Go
EXPECT DELAYS: Due to high order volume, we are experiencing a shipping delay of 22-24 business days…

Midway USA
ALL AR-15 magazines currently showing “out of stock, NO backorder.”

Brownells
Due to extreme order volumes, shipments may be delayed. We will continue to make every effort to get orders out the door as quickly as possible.

Why this matters: Social unrest

Here’s why all this matters. In a time of social unrest, cops are your best friends. Without cops on the streets, every major U.S. city would devolve into a gang-infested crap-hole within 72 hours or less. Cops are the men and women in blue who prevent the more malicious members of the human race from expressing the kind of evil sons of bitches they really are deep inside.

If you think humanity is “inherently GOOD,” you’ve never been a cop! Ask any cop and they’ll tell you the far less fashionable truth: People are inherently EVIL, selfish, deceptive and dangerous. That’s why we need cops in the first place, isn’t it? To keep some criminal-minded dirtbag from breaking into your home, stealing your jewelry and raping your dog. (Or whatever it is they do.)

Cops get a bad rap in peace time, of course, but in a collapse scenario — or something worse — you’ll be begging for 911 to function so you can dial a phone and have (relatively) friendly men with guns arrive at your doorstep.

Society needs cops to prevent criminals from running rampant across neighborhoods and pillaging to their heart’s delight. Or, better yet, society needs every household to own a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun for their own defense, but unfortunately that’s not yet the case in America. (Although it nearly is in Switzerland.)

So what happens when cops run out of bullets?

It’s not good. Not unless you’re a gang member just waiting to commit mayhem all over town.

If gang bangers ever figure out that the cops are out of bullets, it will be all-out war in many U.S. cities, including Miami, LA, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and NYC. A disarmed police force is no police force at all, since it’s only really the threat of high-velocity lead that actually stops bad people from doing bad things. (Criminals don’t care if you ask nice. They are only motivated by their own survival.)

It also means that the feds will have a strong ammunition advantage over local cops and sheriffs, since the U.S. federal government has been stockpiling 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition domestically, right here in the United States.

Why does this matter? Here’s why:

Will states resist a federal gun grab?

Think about where all this is headed, folks: Wyoming lawmakers have already announced their “Firearms Protection Act” which would make it a felony crime for feds to restrict or confiscate guns from the citizens of Wyoming. It reads as follows:

Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured… in Wyoming… shall be guilty of a FELONY and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one year…

Yeah, I didn’t make that up. Wyoming folks are serious about their rifles and their ammo… as are folks in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Kentucky, Maine and practically every rural area across the country. It’s very likely that Texas, Arizona and other states may follow Wyoming’s example and seek to criminalize federal gun grabbers.

If Obama’s gun control schemes turn out to be foolishly aggressive, this could set off a state’s rights showdown between the feds and local law enforcement. But if the feds have all the ammo, where will state peace officers find ammunition to defend the people of their state?

The answer is YOU. It will ultimately be YOUR ammo that will be needed to defend states against an anti-America, anti-Constitution federal tyranny that attempts to invade and overrun states. The People, of course, have always been the common defense against tyranny. In the Constitution, this is referred to as the militia.

Hopefully it won’t get that bad and cooler heads will prevail, but given where things appear to be headed, all this could become very relevant more quickly than you think. It’s a good thing the citizens of America purchase over 1 billion rounds of ammo in the last month, as they may very well become the source of ammo for a common defense against domestic enemies of America.

Rifle inventory update

Here’s the latest info in terms of rifle manufactures:

Noveske Rifleworks = SOLD OUT
POF-USA = SOLD OUT
Rock River Arms = SOLD OUT
Bushmaster = SOLD OUT
Barrett = SOLD OUT
DPMS = SOLD OUT
… and on and on.

Buds Gun Shop is in a state of such total disarray that they actually cashed my check for a firearm they allowed me to “purchase” on their website, then they called me back days later and said they actually DIDN’T have the firearm after all because they had made a “mistake,” and they had to issue me a refund check. This managed to tie up my funds for a couple of weeks during which all the other available rifles disappeared off store shelves. (Thanks a lot, Buds, for making me miss out on probably the last rifle purchase I’ll be able to make until 2014…)

Seeing the opportunity to profit from the supply and demand, Buds is now running real-time auctions on firearms, live on their website. A Bushmaster 223 rifle that used to sell for $800 or so is now fetching $2,900 in the auction. Yep, your existing inventory of rifles just TRIPLED in value. Hmmm… now I think I know where my missing rifle actually went…

On a personal note, I obviously don’t recommend you try to buy anything from Buds until all this is over, as you never really know if they’re going to deliver the rifle you’ve already paid for. (What a crap way to conduct business, for the record. When we sell goods at the Natural News Store, we always have them in stock and ready to ship. Is that so difficult?)

-

PANIC: ONE MILLION AR-15 MAGAZINES ON BACKORDER

By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. | CNS News

January 9, 2013

According to the gun review site, “Haus of Guns,” backorders for the Magpul AR-15 30-round magazine (“PMAG”) have surpassed one million.

In a Facebook post dated today, January 9, Haus of Guns writes the following:

“Had breakfast with a buddy who has reasonably close ties to the Magpul family.  Word is the great PMAG panic backorder of 2012/13 has topped 1 million at Magpul HQ.”

Magpul is a designer and manufacturer of firearms accessories.  The PMAG is one of their most popular products.  It is a 30-round magazine designed for the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

Sales of firearms, ammunition and firearms accessories have surged in recent weeks over fears that the Obama administration will soon implement stricter gun laws.

Dianne Fenstien (D-Calif.) plans on introducing legislation that would ban military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Because the PMAG holds 30 rounds, it would fall under the definition of “high-capacity” in the Feinstein bill.

But, before any such legislation occurs, gun enthusiasts are scouring the nation to get their hands on what could be some of the last manufactured PMAGs.

-

REPORT: WALMART FORBIDS NEW AMMUNITION ORDERS

Store managers told they cannot order more bullets until further notice

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 15, 2013

UPDATE: Walmart has denied reports that store managers are being forbidden from buying ammo, telling World Net Daily, ““We’re continuing to serve our customers as we have in the past.”

According to some customers, Walmart has forbidden store managers from re-ordering ammunition inventory until further notice, raising fears that the Obama administration’s gun control agenda is already being enacted via the back door.

On Sunday, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer demanded that gun retailers like Walmart and Sports Authority, “Suspend sales of modern assault-style weapons until Congress is able to fully consider and vote on legislation to curb gun violence.”

“If Congress passes measures to reduce availability of these weapons, those efforts could be undermined by the purchase of thousands of weapons before then,” he added.

Reports from customers attempting to purchase ammunition in Walmart stores suggest that major retailers could already be strangling the supply of ammo in response to government pressure following the Sandy Hook massacre.

A message posted on the DailySheeple website reads, “I’ve read various postings on message boards claiming local Wal-Mart managers told customers they are no longer permitted to reorder ammo inventory. I can confirm this is true.

I went to Wal-Mart today in our town to buy ammo. The case was almost empty. I asked the store manager when new supplies will arrive.

He said, “Corporate headquarters notified all local managers that we can not order any more ammo until further notice.”

Do Wal-Mart executives know that Piers Morgan doesn’t shop at Wal-Mart, but millions of middle class American families are the source of their wealth? What happens to Wal-Mart’s earnings if Middle Class America boycotts Wal-Mart for caving in to Obama?

The notion that such a policy could have been put in place is plausible given that both Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods suspended sales of some semi-automatic rifles following the Newtown school shooting.

Walmart has also been the target of protests in recent days on behalf of gun control advocates demanding they cease all firearm sales.

We asked Walmart if they had enacted this policy but received no response at time of press.

Last month, top online gun distributor Cheaper Than Dirt announced that it had temporarily suspended all gun sales in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, a move which drew widespread condemnation from second amendment enthusiasts.

Last week, firearms manufacturer American Spirit Arms announced that Bank of America had frozen the funds of the licensed gun dealer, with the bank telling owner Joe Sirochman he “should not be selling guns and parts on the internet.”

Sirochman was informed that his funds generated from Internet sales would only be released once BoA had reviewed and cleared them.

The apparent effort on behalf of the big banks and top corporate retailers to strangle an industry that is surging coincides with the Obama administration’s attempt to eviscerate the second amendment via executive orders. Vice President Joe Biden yesterday indicated that the White House would pursue 19 different executive orders pertaining to gun control in order to bypass the need for Congressional authorization.

In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened to start impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama, while Senator Rand Paul accused Obama of acting like a “king” while “usurping the Constitution,” and “running roughshod over Congress.”

If true, it’s particularly ironic that Walmart is preventing Americans from purchasing ammunition at the same time that the federal government is buying up bullets in vast quantities, having secured over 1.6 billion rounds of ammo in the last nine months alone.

-

NATIONWIDE AMMO SHORTAGE – FOR POLICE

By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. | CNS News

Police departments nationwide are experiencing ammunition shortages, according to the online law enforcement resource, PoliceOne.com

Sgt. Chris Forrester of the Greer Police Department in South Carolina told local TV-news channel WSPA-7:

“It’s never easy to get ammo, but since the tragedy in Connecticut, it’s become even more difficult.”

Forrester says the department began experiencing problems ordering ammunition a little less than a month ago.  “You’ll call and they say ‘sorry we’re out,’ or ‘it’s on back order,’” he said.

The shortage has forced Sgt. Forrester to rethink quarterly training for his officers saying, “We’re having to be more conservative.”

Typically, officers are required to fire 60 rounds with a rifle but because of ammunition backorders, they’ve reduced that number to 20, Forrester explained.

According to WSB-TV, tens of thousands of rounds are on backorder for departments in Georgia which has forced the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office to reschedule training exercises as they scramble for ammo.

Chief Terry Sult of the Sandy Springs Police Department said, “It affects our ability to be prepared.  It affects the potential safety of the officers, because they’re not as proficient as they should be.”

Jay Wallace, owner of Smyrna Police Distributors in Cobb County, Georgia commented on the ammunition shortage:

“There’s been more demand for ammunition than there’s ever been. We’re going to be starting to get very concerned at the six-month level if that’s all we have in stock, because then we have to start planning and rationing.”

Wallace also said that some police departments could wait up to a year for bulk ammunition orders to be shipped.

-

RELATED POSTS:

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA SIGNS NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2013 INTO LAW ON JANUARY 2, 2013: MARTIAL LAW COMES TO AMERICA

.

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. GOVERNMENT NOW ACTIVATING FEMA DETENTION CAMPS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

.

EXCLUSIVE: LEAKED U.S. ARMY DOCUMENTS CONFIRM PRISON CAMPS ARE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

.

POLICE STATE USA: NEW OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER SEIZES U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE AND CITIZENS FOR MILITARY PREPAREDNESS; PREPARING FOR MARTIAL LAW

.

ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015

.

EXCLUSIVE: PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR DOUG HAGMANN, ‘DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IS PREPARING FOR A MASSIVE CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES’

.

LINDSEY WILLIAMS: THE TIMELINE TO AMERICA’S TOTAL DESTRUCTION

.

UNITED STATES CIVIL WAR 2016; U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS ARE BEING TOLD TO PLAN TO FIGHT AMERICANS

.

MAX KEISER PLANTS HIS FLAG: TOTAL GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE BY APRIL 2013; COUNTRIES WILL BEGIN TO IMPLODE ONE BY ONE; ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT IS HERE; WORLD TAX IS HERE

.

FORMER HEDGE FUND MANAGER RAOUL PAL PRESENTS A TERRIFYING VISION OF THE END GAME; ‘THE BIGGEST BANKING CRISIS IN WORLD HISTORY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN’

.

JIM ROGERS, SCIENTISTS, ECONOMISTS, AND GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSTS ISSUE A DRAMATIC WARNING OF A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

.

ANALYST JON MOYNIHAN PRESENTS A TERRIFYING VISION: THE DECLINE OF THE WEST

.

RICHARD DUNCAN: VERY REAL DANGER OF COLLAPSE: “COULD BE SO SEVERE I DON’T THINK OUR CIVILIZATION COULD SURVIVE IT

UNITED NATIONS WARNS OF LOOMING WORLDWIDE FOOD CRISIS IN 2013

GUS LUBIN: THE COMING GLOBAL WATER CRISIS THAT WILL SHAKE HUMANITY TO ITS CORE

DOOMSDAY SURVEY: 51% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE A FINANCIAL COLLAPSE IS IMMINENT

REX 84: GOVERNMENT SILENTLY POSTIONS FOR MARTIAL LAW AS FINANCIAL COLLAPSE ARRIVES IN AMERICA

.

UNITED STATES ARMY PREPARES TANKS FOR WAR ON AMERICA; TRAINING MILITARY POLICE TO DRIVE TANKS ON U.S. STREETS; SIGHTINGS OF VEHICLES PROVOKES FEARS OF MARTIAL LAW

-

DR. JAMES GARROW: THE NEW LITMUS TEST FOR MILITARY LEADERS IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL OBEY AN ORDER TO FIRE ON U.S. CITIZENS

2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

Garrow was nominated three years ago for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize and is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, an organization dedicated to rescuing baby girls from “gendercide” in China. Garrow has been personally involved in “helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death.” He is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing.

“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,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

-

OBAMA ASKS MILITARY LEADERS IF THEY WILL FIRE ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS

Shock claim purported to come from “one of America’s foremost military heroes”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 22, 2013

2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

Garrow was nominated three years ago for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize and is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, an organization dedicated to rescuing baby girls from “gendercide” in China. Garrow has been personally involved in “helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death.” He is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing.

“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,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.

It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

The survey was subsequently leaked because many of the Marines who took it were shocked by the tone of the question.

The US Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

Given that second amendment advocates are now being depicted as dangerous terrorists by the federal government and local law enforcement, Garrow’s claim is sure to stoke controversy given that Americans are seeing their gun rights eviscerated while the federal government itself stockpiles billions of bullets.

Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that any federal gun confiscation program could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America.

-

OBAMA WOULD CALL ON MILITARY TO DISARM AMERICANS DURING NATIONAL EMERGENCY

Army manual provides blueprint for confiscating guns of rioters and dissidents

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 2, 2013

The blueprint for how Americans would be disarmed during a declared civil emergency is contained in an Army manual that outlines a plan to confiscate firearms to prevent them falling into the hands of rioters or dissidents.

Given the imminent introduction of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control legislation, which would instantly criminalize millions of gun owners in the United States if passed, concerns that the Obama administration could launch a massive gun confiscation effort have never been greater.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

“Restrictions on the sale, transfer, and possession of sensitive material such as gasoline, firearms, ammunition, and explosives will help control forces in minimizing certain forms of violence,” states the document on page 40.

The issue of gun confiscation is also covered in the manual, which makes clear that every effort will be made to prevent “rioters” and “dissidents” from having access to weapons.

“A main consideration in the conduct of civil disturbance operations is to prevent liquor, drugs, weapons, and ammunition from falling into the hands of rioters. Therefore, liquor stores, drug stores, sporting good shops, pawn shops, and hardware stores are main targets for looters and must be kept under close observation by means of foot and motorized patrols. Normally, businesses of this type must be identified in advance and included in emergency plans,” states the manual. (Emphasis added.)

The document also instructs soldiers to protect “control force personnel and civilian dignitaries in the disturbed area” from the violent behavior of “radical or extremist elements” by denying access to “armories, arsenals, hardware, and sporting good stores, pawnshops, and gunsmith establishments, or other places where weapons or ammunition are stored. To conserve manpower, consideration may be given to evacuating sensitive items, such as weapons from stores and storing them in a central facility.”

Urban warfare training drills focused on invading American towns and going door to door in gun confiscation exercises have been taking place for years. In 2009, a planned mock invasion of Arcadia, Iowa was scaled back by the Iowa National Guard after listeners to the Alex Jones Show threatened to protest the event.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police, National Guard troops, and U.S. Marshals confiscated firearms. “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns,” New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass declared as he prepared to violate the Second Amendment. The National Guard conducted warrantless house-to-house searches, targeting not just Hurricane-hit areas under the pretext of stopping violent looters, but also high and dry homes that were not even affected by the storm.

-

TROOPS ORDERED TO KILL ALL AMERICANS WHO DO NOT TURN IN GUNS

-

-

-

RED ALERT: NORTH CAROLINA POLICE LIEUTENANT WARNS OF PLANS FOR MARTIAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES STARTING IN 2013

Brandon Smith
Alt Market
Jan 2, 2013

In this broadcast of the Cybertribe News Network, a North Carolina Police Lieutenant calls in to give his first hand knowledge of preparations being made within his own department to train and prepare for martial law in the United States, possibly in the coming year.

Many similar reports are starting to trickle in from all across the country, through various independent media resources and even organizations like Oath Keepers.

The consensus is that a major economic event is expected, and that it will be used to provide cover for the institution of draconian policies being readied behind the curtain.  The exact timing of this event is not clear, but we do know the planning is being done, and that provisions are being put in place.

The following officer’s admissions are another startling indicator of just how close to the precipice we really are…

-

BREAKING UPDATE INTERVIEW WITH NORTH CAROLINA POLICE LIEUTENANT MCCOY DEFINES MARTIAL LAW HE SEES COMING IN THE UNITED STATES STARTING IN 2013

-

-

JESSE VENTURA: FEMA CAMPS IN THE UNITED STATES WILL BE USED TO ROUND UP AND DETAIN CITIZENS

-

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, FOREIGN TROOPS AND LOCAL POLICE ARE PREPARING FOR MARTIAL LAW IN 2013

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 7, 2013

Those with nothing to lose the 47% of Americans on social or subsidy programs are expected to be the ones to take to the streets and riot at the beginning of the 2nd American civil war.

Manufactured poverty has become the standard under the Communist-in-Chief, Barack Obama. This breaks the will of the populace as they are unable to feed their families as the economy suffers while the growth of the government continues. Social norms now dictate that a government handout is nothing to be ashamed of. And the road to serfdom is being paved.

Those able and willing to fight against the “change” that has “come to America” thanks to Obama would be the target of most of the violence. In many documents published by the US government and globalist think-tanks, explanation of effective urban combat has been discussed and plotted. One such document is entitled “Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain” , dating back to 2002.

Here the “characteristics” of urban centers are explained and how to successfully lock down a major US city is posed to combine the most effective course of action. From aerial attacks, to small-unit battles on the ground, the scenario of combat through intelligence, through knowledge of the terrain, and preparation is analyzed and presented so that commanders and leaders can consider all options before beginning such an endeavor.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has resumed purchasing hollow-point bullets. In December of 2012, DHS solicited for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to have 200 cases, containing 1000 rounds each, of 13-40 Cal, 180 grain, jacketed hollow-point bullets.

The US Armed Forces being given these deadly bullets are:

• Maritime Law Enforcement and Port Security Training
• US Coast Guard Maritime Law Enforcement Academy
• US Courts Probation and Pretrial Services Training Academy
• US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Training Academy
• Customs and Border Protection Field Operations Academy
• Naval Criminal Investigative Service

The Pacific Southwest Region of the US Forest Service has solicited ammunition that is supposedly needed for target practice. In this instance, the amounts of hollow point bullets, 12 gauge rifle slugs, and other accessories are smaller than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested through other federal agencies.

DHS previously published a solicitation for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP. The Social Security Office has also made a ordering more MREs as a replenishment of stocked meals with a shelf life of 30 – 36 months. Because FEMA has made the solicitation, it may be assumed that these MREs are for disaster relief; however knowing how nefarious previous purchases have been, it would leave anyone feeling dubious.

In August of 2012, Major General Jerry Curry asked “who does the government intend to shoot?” Curry asserted that: “No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens.”

Last October, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6566 which is an amendment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that imbues the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.”

Elected officials assume that in such an event, funeral homes, cemeteries and mortuaries would be overwhelmed should millions of Americans suddenly die in a tragic event. There must also be allowances for survivors of such an event.

Representatives from local and state governments must coordinate with federal agencies, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations and appropriate individuals to prepare and respond to an incident wherein mass casualties occur.

The Congressional Research Service released a report that expounds on the use of military on American streets for enforcement action against civilians. This document states that the Patriot Act gives the US government permission to use military to assist law enforcement in the establishment of a terrorist infiltration, civil unrest, disaster relief and if needed as first responders. This renders Posse Comitatus useless.

According to George Foresman, former undersecretary of the DHS: “When the military is used – whether the decision is made by the president or governor – there has to be an intimate understanding of Posse Comitatus, and unfortunately, this is not the case. Frankly, this CRS report is a document that every key decision-maker or adviser should keep in their bottom desk drawer as a reference, just above their resignation letter. If they don’t, the resignation letter might be the next document they need.”

The Canadian military trained for domestic operations in locking down urban populations with the US Military in September of 2012. The supposition was that a massive revolt could break out as global civilian revolution is believed to be imminent.

In Colorado, rumors of Russian troops practicing to deal with terrorist raids and martial law scenarios have been proven correct by our US Armed Forces. Back in April 2012, Commander Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer, stated that “The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform.”

Both Russian and American airborne troops held training exercises that included tactical landing operations with specialized focus on “parachuting, operation planning, reconnaissance, assault operations and evacuations by helicopter.”

Back in May of 2012, mainstream media reported that Russian army paratroopers were in Colorado training with the 10th US Special Forces Group at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This collaboration was agreed upon more than a year ago with the purpose of joining forces in “humanitarian operations such as anti-terrorism measures and disaster relief.”

-

NEW CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT PREPARES FOR MASS CASUALTIES IN AMERICA

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
October 8, 2012

Last month, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6566 which is an amendment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that imbues the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.”

In the anticipated event of a “mass fatality”, coordination and planning must be forefront of FEMA with the assistance of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as referred by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (CTI). In the event that the Executive Branch or Congress declares a mass disaster caused by nature, a domestic terrorist attack, or any other man-made catastrophe, there must be a national plan to prepare for and respond to the incident.

Elected officials assume that in such an event, funeral homes, cemeteries and mortuaries would be overwhelmed should millions of Americans suddenly die in a tragic event. There must also be allowances for survivors of such an event.

Representatives from local and state governments must coordinate with federal agencies, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations and appropriate individuals to prepare and respond to an incident wherein mass casualties occur.

Recently, FEMA graduated their inaugural class of 231 FEMA Corps members trained in future disaster preparedness whether state-sponsored or natural. These intiates will be the leaders of the FEMA Center for Domestic Preparedness will be assigned specific roles across the nation from community relations to Disaster Recovery Center support.

The DHS and Simon Properties have collaborated on the See Something, Say Something campaign, but also may have a sinister agenda. DHS has created relationships with representatives with Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National Football League.

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of DHS explains that “we’re all safer when everyone is alert and engaged” and she wants the American public to spy on each other because our continued safety is “a shared responsibility”.

The DHS has been amassing an estimated 1.8 billion rounds of hollow point bullets through their agency; as well as the Social Security Office, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and the US Forest Service and other federal agencies. These solicitations have spawned great debate as to who the US government intends to shoot.

The DHS has also recently solicited for 1,400 pounds of high density ammonium nitrate and A-5 Flake RDX that will build improvised explosive devices (IEDs) without explanation as to why they would require the exact ingredients to manufacture a fertilizer bomb.

Mainstream media reported in August that there was a reasonable supposition that radicalized extremists could threaten shopping malls. Federal and local law enforcement was on alert that Middle Eastern Islamic militants or right wing extremists could and most likely would threaten a shopping mall to instill fear in the general public.

According to a 2004 report from the DHS entitled Characteristics and Common Vulnerabilities Infrastructure Category: Shopping Malls, states that every mall in America is a “soft target” which could be used by terrorists to “cause economic damage, inflict casualties and instill fear.”

DHS specifies that among other types of security breaches, explosives (such as a car bomb or suicide bomber) tops their list of potential “threats of concern” regarding shopping malls.

FEMA coffins, purchased by the federal agency and stacked on acres of land all over the nation, have been patented as multi-functional cremation containers for dead bodies.

-

-

ATTACK HELICOPTERS LET LOOSE WITH MACHINE GUN FIRE OVER MIAMI

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 28, 2013

Military “exercises” in populated urban environments are now so routine, so commonplace, they are no longer reported by the national media and are left as “human interest” stories for local news stations.

-

-

For instance, in Miami last Thursday, units of the military industrial complex staged yet another training exercise.

“Diving Blackhawks, blank rounds of machine gun fire, strafing runs, troops rappelling from choppers, and road blockades,” writes Karen De Coster. “All over the skies of Miami at night, just a few days ago. According to this local TV clown in the video, this event was for the purposes of ‘meeting requirements,’ preparing for overseas military drills, and making sure the equipment is in check.”

In the above video, we hear the staccato of door guns pounding away as “military-style choppers” swooped a couple hundred feet above traffic on I-395 in downtown Miami.

From the local CBS disinfo ministry:

The training is designed to ensure that military personnel are able to operate in urban areas and to focus on preparations for overseas deployment. It also serves as a mandatory training certification requirement.

An “exercise” to acclimate Floridians to the presence of military troops (invariably mingled with cops also sporting combat attire and weapons) went down in April, 2011 and “frightened many residents in the area.”

-

CLASSIFIED MILITARY MARTIAL LAW DRILLS CONDUCTED IN MIAMI FLORIDA JANUARY 25, 2013

-

ARMY TRAINING EXERCISE HAPPENING ON HOUSTON’S SOUTH SIDE

January 28, 2013

-

-

HOUSTON (KTRK) — SkyEye 13 HD was over the south side where at first look, it appears there’s a massive SWAT scene happening.

People have been calling police, as well as our newsroom, saying they’re hearing gunshots in the area of Scott and Airport. It turns out, the Army says, it’s a multi-agency training drill. They’re doing it at the old Carnegie High School.

Helicopters were also involved. The Army isn’t giving any details of what the training is about.

So if you see the helicopters or hear gunfire, it’s only a drill.

-

BRAZEN MILITARY DRILLS TO TOUR AMERICA IN 2013

-

MILITARY TRAINING DRILLS RESUME IN PREPARATION FOR MARTIAL LAW

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 29, 2013

Competitive Outcomes , an organization training young military recruits from the JROTC, ROTC, cadet programs, foreign militaries and police and fire departments are conducting customized drill training exercises, seminars and providing manuals in 2013 in Marietta, Georgia; Los Angeles and San Diego, California. They work with the US Navy, armed and unarmed divisions of ROTC and JROTC; as well as the Air Force.

Recently black hawk helicopters flew across the skies in Miami, Florida in a joint drill exercise between the US Military and local police. Traffic was blocked off on major streets. Military personnel claimed that the exercises were in preparation for overseas combat missions. However the sound of gunfire could be heard as locals were alarmed.

The Miami-Dade County Police Department said in a statement that this was “routine” and “designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments and meet mandatory certification requirement.”

In Houston, Texas, SWAT teams and the US Military conducted a training exercise near the local airport. According to the Military, this was a multi-agency training drill.

Helicopters were circling Carnegie High School near Houston.

The House of Representative have raised the pay scale for Military, National Guard and Reservists by 1.7% in 2013.

According to the State of Washington 2013-2015 Training and Exercise Plan document explains a “strategic plan [that] combines enhanced planning” with “new equipment purchases, innovative training and realistic exercises to strengthen Washington’s emergency prevention and response capabilities.”

This plan coordinates local police departments with the US Military in an effort to “assess core capabilities in order to define objectives” regarding training exercises. These drills are administered by the Washington Military Department’s Emergency management Division (EMD). Collaboration with local and state agencies, as well as private sector partners supports an agenda to bind those agencies together to receive funds from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the guise of protecting the general public, property, and the economy of the US government.

Presidential administrative National Security Strategy documents explain how to defend the Republic within domestic borders with suggested scenarios where a group of political reactionaries commandeer a prominent area of a town or city which requires that the US Army support local law enforcement in conjunction with state officials – including local government representatives.

As outlined in the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) report, processes are defined by operational environments in regard to battle space, effects, evaluation of threats and adversaries while determining the course of action. In regard to civil situations, and to maintain intelligence and operational purposes, preparations with regard to terrain are inconsequential.

According to the RAND Corporation document, Street Smart: Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield for Urban Operations, the use of IPB in urban areas will alleviate some of the anticipated “analytic difficulties posed by urbanized areas.”

By training in American cities, the armed forces can realize maneuvers and special considerations that are needed to control urban infrastructure in the case of civil disturbance and insurrection. Having foreknowledge of the people living in the specified cities that are marked for control assist in the “critical operational success” of not only “knowing the enemy” but also the ability to retain a level of concealment and surprise.

When the US Army is “called upon to operate in villages, towns, and cities their directive will be to “neutralize American citizen’s technological capabilities” using “sophisticated intelligence equipment” and advanced tactical training.

Contained within the US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations are outlines describing how the US military will use the arsenal at their disposal to quell domestic riots, confiscate firearms and kill Americans during times of mass civil unrest.

The explicit use of “deadly force” when confronting “dissidents” is clearly stated with the refusal of a “warning shot” and the directives toward weapons that rioters or demonstrators will experience in the name of continuity of government.

In 2012, the US Special Operations Command (USSOC) has conducted “training exercises” over Minneapolis. In a twofold effort, the US Armed Forces are acclimating the American public to seeing military everywhere, as well as being able to train their soldiers in real time on US streets in a manipulative effort to circumvent Posse Comitatus.

Both the local police department and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) collaborated, according to authorities to decide on training exercise times and locations although the general public was unaware of these war games until they were evident in their local skies.

The Department of Defense (DoD) drill that concerned residents in Coconut Grove, a city in Miami-Dade County, Florida. After midnight, simulated gunfire and explosions would be heard as military helicopters flew over skyscrapers. Local mainstream media reported: “Miami police assisted in overseeing the exercises — but they were instructed to keep quiet about the exercises until late Monday, for security reasons. The police also blocked off roads around the Grand Bay during the exercise.”

In Plainville and Worchester, Massachusetts, surprised citizens witnessed “military helicopters descended on the vacant Wood School [in] the late hours of the night in a scene that might have appeared to simulate the United States’ Special Forces attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound last year.” Many locals had their homes swooped down upon by black helicopters in an obvious display of military dominance over the general public.

Residents saw helicopters landing near Worcester Memorial Auditorium in Lincoln Square. Local newspapers were flooded with “telephone calls and e-mails . . . curious about what was happening.”

The local police claim they were unaware of the drills.

Law-enforcement battalions, consisting of specialized military police officers (SMP), are being set up to work with local police while remaining part of the Marine Corp.

SMPs would be deployed to assist in any event of civil disturbance, handling of detainees, use biometrics to identify suspects and conduct forensic work. Their assistance is not limited to conducting DUIs and writing speeding tickets in an effort to re-brand the Marine Corps as being more involved with average work now allocated to local law enforcement.

-

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REPOSITIONING HOMELAND SECURITY AMMUNITION CONTAINERS

Posted by Jim Hoft

January 30, 2013

The containers (like those pictured) are usually painted olive drab and are unmarked except for indistinguishable numbers/letters probably for inventory, routing, etc.

Reader Don sent this in recently:

Jim – I passed a convoy of olive drab unmarked 40 foot tractor trailers each with four 10 yard ammo bunker boxes chained to them and unmarked armored Hum-Vee’s heading north on I-95 in Brevard County, Florida this past Thursday morning. The “govt” is positioning these ammo storage boxes, I have been told, in strategic places in population centers around the country. They are usually painted olive drab and are unmarked except for indistinguishable numbers/letters probably for inventory, routing, etc.

Obama’s Homeland Security Department has purchased 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition – that is not a typo — during the last six months.

ATK is one company that won a contract with the Department of Homeland Security to provide 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition in 2012.

Previously it was reported that people around the US have begun reporting the site of strange, new, heavily-armed FEMA fighting vehicles this past year.

One set of images made available by Rense.com shows trailer after trailer carrying these new DHS and FEMA armored fighting vehicles, complete with machine gun slots. They’re labeled with the usual backward American flag and the title, ‘Homeland Security’. Below that and the DHS logo, it also reads, ‘Immigration & Customs Enforcement’. Joining those markings, the black vehicles with white lettering also display ‘POLICE/RESCUE’ on one side and ‘Special Response Team’ on the other.

Whiteout Press reported on the government ammunition purchases back in October 2012.

As we detailed in the August 28 Whiteout Press article ‘History of DHS Ammunition Purchases’, federal emergency management agencies are looking more and more like a military army every day.

The federal government’s procurement website actually lists DHS’ requests for bids to supply it with ammunition and military weaponry. All of the orders listed in the above article, including the orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition, are publicly available at http://www.fbo.gov.

One look at a chart of DHS ammunition purchases over the past decade reveals a drastic spike in orders of bullets recently, totaling in the billions of rounds. Other charts available online show a similar drastic spike in the purchases of accompanying weaponry by the Department of Homeland Security.

What is the US federal government preparing for? And why does it feel it needs an army of brainwashed youth, millions of guns, thousands of armored fighting vehicles and literally billions of rounds of ammunition, just to provide relief to the American people during a natul disaster? Any historian will tell you it sounds more like the arming of the Hitler Youth than an army of first responders fighting forest fires and hurricanes.

Look for the Homeland Security ammunition containers coming soon to your community.

-

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA SIGNS NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT INTO LAW ON DECEMBER 31, 2011: MARTIAL LAW COMES TO AMERICA

.

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. GOVERNMENT NOW ACTIVATING FEMA DETENTION CAMPS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

.

EXCLUSIVE: LEAKED U.S. ARMY DOCUMENTS CONFIRM PRISON CAMPS ARE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

.

POLICE STATE USA: NEW OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER SEIZES U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE AND CITIZENS FOR MILITARY PREPAREDNESS; PREPARING FOR MARTIAL LAW

.

ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015

.

EXCLUSIVE: PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR DOUG HAGMANN, ‘DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IS PREPARING FOR A MASSIVE CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES’

.

UNITED STATES CIVIL WAR 2016; U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS ARE BEING TOLD TO PLAN TO FIGHT AMERICANS

.

URGENT: HILLARY CLINTON SIGNS UNITED NATIONS SMALL ARMS TREATY

.

REX 84: GOVERNMENT SILENTLY POSTIONS FOR MARTIAL LAW AS FINANCIAL COLLAPSE ARRIVES IN AMERICA

.

UNITED STATES ARMY PREPARES TANKS FOR WAR ON AMERICA; TRAINING MILITARY POLICE TO DRIVE TANKS ON U.S. STREETS; SIGHTINGS OF VEHICLES PROVOKES FEARS OF MARTIAL LAW

-

GEORGE GREEN: THE ELITE’S PLAN FOR TOTAL GLOBAL DOMINATION

As America and European economies are destroyed, and the current unrest continues in the Middle East and Africa, it will lead Russia, China, and the entire world into World War III. The war will bring about a final nuclear exchange that will be so catastrophic that the world population will demand that world conflict never happen again. This will involve implementing a centralized World Government, with a one world army, a one world currency, and a one world religion that will have complete and total control over every single society.

World War III is being planned and designed to change the face of society forever. The global elite want societies to stay in a world war long enough to change them in such a way that they will never change back again. If you look at the world after a major war like World War I or World War II, societies were never the same again.

The purpose then of World War III, will be to change the face of global society to the point where the elite can introduce a centralized World Government in a way that members of society no longer have their individual freedom, and it will never be able to change back again.

-

GREG HUNTER: WE ARE CLOSER TO WORLD WAR THAN YOU THINK

.

CHOSSUDOVSKY: TOWARDS A WORLD WAR III SCENARIO

.

READ THE FULL E-BOOK FREE: TOWARDS A WORLD WAR III SCENARIO

.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AND WORLD WAR III

.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD BE UNSURVIVABLE

.

RAY MCGOVERN: ISRAEL’S BOMB IRAN TIMETABLE; THE REAL REASON ISRAEL WANTS TO STRIKE IRAN BEFORE THE U.S. ELECTION

.

MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY: ISRAEL’S WAR PLANS TO ATTACK IRAN “BEFORE THE U.S. ELECTIONS”

.

JOSEPH FARAH: ISRAEL WILL STRIKE IRAN OCTOBER 2012

.

NINETEEN SIGNS THAT ISRAEL AND IRAN ARE ON THE VERGE OF WAR

.

IF THIS DOCUMENT IS CORRECT ISRAEL’S ATTACK ON IRAN WOULD BE LIKE NOTHING WE HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE

.

PAUL FARRELL: WORLD WAR III: THE GREAT COMMODITIES WAR TO END ALL WARS

-

BOB DACY: THE UNITED NATIONS HISTORY OF GUN DISARMAMENT

-

UNITED NATIONS ARMS TREATY MEANS COMPLETE DISARMAMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com

Monday, July 16, 2012

The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war.

The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter adds that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and “international crime syndicates,” the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.

This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a “Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.”

Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.”

While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the UN “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.”

“The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes,” states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet’s supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.

As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish — taking a huge bite out of the second amendment — is by no means far fetched.

After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.

.

ALEX JONES: OBAMA IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS

Published on Nov 9, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel

While ignorant Obamanoids can’t get past the celebrity image of “their” president, our Constitutional republic is quickly crumbling. The Obama Administration has openly announced their intent to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban that was “law” for ten years, but this time Dianne Feinstein and the gun-grabbing liberals aren’t just restricting new weapons & ammo purchases, but seeking legislation to require arms be turned in and private sales be barred.

.

Simultaneously, the Obama Administration is helping to revive the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, which will undermine the sovereignty of the 2nd Amendment by putting international control over the flow of weapons, inevitably inside the U.S. border as well as nation wide.

.

This is not speculation, this is not hyperbole, this is not myth– but the admitted plan now underway. We must awaken to this authoritarian control measure and stop it through political pressure before it is too late.

.

.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA LARRY PRATT: OBAMA WANTS TO ERADICATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, breaks down Obama’s plan to eradicate the Second Amendment in his second term.

.

STEVE QUAYLE: ETHNIC WARFARE, UNITED STATES CIVIL WAR AND UNITED NATIONS GUN CONFISCATION IS COMING; THE ELITE SAY THE UNITED STATES MUST BE DISARMED

.

STEWART RHODES: REPEALING THE 2ND AMENDMENT WOULD START ANOTHER CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES

Infowars.com
Dec 17, 2012

Alex Jones focuses on the coordinated moves from the gun control lobby to seize upon the tragic shooting in Connecticut in order to restrict the 2nd Amendment.

-

BERNADINE SMITH: U.S. TO SURRENDER MILITARY CONTROL TO UNITED NATIONS WHILE DISARMING AMERICANS

Published on Aug 2, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel

Alex Jones talks with Bernadine Smith, the founder of the Second Amendment Committee, a nationwide organization working to make sure the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is upheld as the supreme protective law for firearms of law-abiding people. Smith also authored legislation to restore the militia system to its proper role as designed by the framers of the Constitution.

http://www.libertygunrights.com/index.html

.

OBAMA’S HIDDEN AGENDA: THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS

.

WHY OBAMA WANTS YOUR GUNS AND THE REST OF YOUR FREEDOMS

Second Amendment in the crosshairs

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
November 13, 2012

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people….We have to be repetitive about this….We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Attorney General Eric Holder

“We must get rid of all the guns.”

Sarah Brady

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

Gun control advocate Sarah Brady’s infamous vow to “get rid of all the guns” has never been more prescient as we enter a second term of the Obama administration – 18 months after Obama assured Brady during a White House meeting that gun control was “very much on his agenda.”

Gun sales surged before the election and panic buying continues to proliferate, with stocks of gun manufacturers like Ruger and Smith & Wesson going parabolic, as Americans prepare for an all out assault on the second amendment.

Obama himself publicly signaled his intention to re-introduce the assault weapons ban during the second presidential debate.

“What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally,” Obama said during the debate at Hofstra University. “Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”

Obama’s anti-gun record clearly suggests he will use his lame duck term as a tool with which to eviscerate the second amendment.

As an Illinois state senator Obama attempted to limit sales of handguns to one per month and even voted against a bill that protected firearms manufacturers from lawsuits over misuse of their products by others. Obama has consistently supported the assault weapons ban and even ridiculed gun owners during an April 2008 speech when he said small town people “cling to guns” to express their frustration.

Obama’s March 2011 meeting with Brady, during which he assured her that he was working “under the radar” to assault gun rights just months before the Fast and Furious scandal broke clearly indicates that Americans may “cling to guns” for a very salient reason – the fear that an Obama administration with nothing to lose is set to take a huge bite out of the second amendment.

Gun rights are already being whittled away through regulatory procedures that operate outside of the law, with the ATF last year issuing a letter ordering firearms dealers in border states to report sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles, and following it up by harassing gun owners with intimidating home visits as well as threatening gun dealers to spy on their customers.

The ATF’s regulatory backdoor assault on gun rights is also opening the door for shotguns to be banned under the justification that they can hold more than two rounds, a move Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns.”

Americans who buy a few boxes of ammunition are also being treated as suspicious individuals and questioned by police.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has already resolved to push a new piece of anti-gun legislation that would, “Ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”.

The fact that Barack Obama has occasionally promised not to target the second amendment is completely meaningless., Indeed, if you look at all the other liberties his administration has savaged, the assurance that he won’t dismantle gun rights should almost be taken as a threat that he will.

- As part of his 2008 campaign pledge, Obama promised to close down Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration not only failed to close the infamous prison camp, they expanded its use.

- Last year (after campaigning to protect Habeas Corpus before he was elected), Obama promised not to sign the National Defense Authorization Act, with its provisions for the indefinite detention of American citizens, yet put his signature on the bill in the dead of night on New Year’s Eve. Indeed, it was the Obama administration itself which argued for the removal of language that would have protected Americans from the provisions and then had them re-instituted after a court had struck them down.

- As part of his campaign pitch, Obama promised to “not use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.” Obama has issued no less than 19 signing statements since he took office.

- In 2008, Obama promised “no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens.” Just months after he took office, Obama expanded Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. The invasiveness of illegal wiretapping is worse under Obama than it was under Bush.

The History of Gun Control is the History of Tyranny

The history of gun control tells us that state seizure of firearms is habitually used as a precursor to impose a power monopoly of the state.

Right back to Roman times, the lower orders were disarmed of all their weapons in a bid to suffocate the political power of the people and limit their ability to voice grievances.

Japanese warrior Toyotomi Hideyoshi was candid in explaining why the population of that country was disarmed in what came to be known as Great Sword Hunt in 1588 when he decreed: “The possession of unnecessary implements [of war] makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to foment uprisings.”

Communist mastermind Chairman Mao echoed a similar sentiment when he stated, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Fast forward 250 years and some of the first gun control laws in the embryonic United States were against black people, to ensure they remained slaves. Blacks were prohibited “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead.”

Adolf Hitler was also abundantly aware of the fact that the one thing which stands in the way of a repressive dictatorship is an armed population. In 1938 the Nazis banned Jews ”from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.”

In the 21st century, the primary vanguard of gun control has been elevated to the international level. Hours after Obama’s re-election victory, his administration joined with 150 other governments to renew its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, a process which critics have warned will set the stage for Americans to have their gun rights voted out of existence by the global body with no involvement from the US Congress or Senate.

Whether Obama chooses to characterize his second term by declaring war on the second amendment remains to be seen, but it’s almost inevitable given that virtually every one of Obama’s promises before his 2008 election success has been broken, we will once again witness the lurching advance of big government over the next four years as cherished rights are chewed up and spat out with wanton disregard for the Constitutional foundation of the country.

.

ELITE PULL OUT ALL STOPS TO GRAB GUNS AFTER OBAMA VICTORY

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 8, 2012

Prior to the election, Infowars.com warned that Obama, his Democrat allies and the internationalist gun-grabbers would move their agenda to disarm America forward if Obama was reappointed on November 6.

“Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, President Barack Obama’s administration joined with China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, confirming the worst fears of the American gun rights community,” the Second Amendment Foundation reported on Wednesday.

“U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies,” the New York Times reported the same day.157 governments at the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament in New York on Wednesday voted to disarm citizens. The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote where it is expected to pass.

“MPs and PGA [globalist Parliamentarians for Global Action] legislators all around the world, as well as many of the colleagues with whom we work, are deeply committed to making the ATT [Arms Trade Treaty] a meaningful reality in the near future,” PGA president and New Zealand Member of Parliament Ross Robertson said.

“We want a strong ATT and we want it soon. We will move heaven and earth to see that, once it is in place, it is signed, ratified and implemented in all our countries as soon as possible,” he added.

A gun buy boom followed the election as millions of Americans went out and stocked up on firearms and ammo, fearing the inevitable.

“People are definitely scared of a president who has voted when he was a senator against guns,” Anthony Bouchard, director of the Wyoming Gun Owners Association in Cheyenne told the Wyoming Star Tribune.

“[If Obama gets re-elected] he’s in a lame-duck session and he can do the things he wants to do. That’s what we’re afraid of.”Obama’s record as an aggressive gun-grabber is clear and during his second term he will have little to fear from defenders of the Second Amendment.“Don’t forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars,” writes Larry Bell for Forbes.

“That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.”

-

UNITED NATIONS CELEBRATES OBAMA RE-ELECTION BY PUSHING GLOBAL GUN CONTROL, SAYS SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION

Second Amendment Foundation
Nov 8, 2012

Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, President Barack Obama’s administration joined with China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, confirming the worst fears of the American gun rights community.

The vote came at the U.N. General Assembly’s meeting of the First Committee on Disarmament at the world organization’s headquarters in New York City.“It’s obvious that our warnings over the past several months have been true,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

“The election was called about 11 p.m. Tuesday and by 11 a.m. this morning, we got word that the United States was supporting this resolution. We have to be more vigilant in our efforts to stop this proposed treaty.”SAF Operations Director Julianne Versnel, who has been back and forth to the United Nations over this proposal, said the fight is not finished. The measure will be considered for finalization in March 2013.

“We will continue to monitor this issue and oppose any effort to enforce a global gun control measure,” she stated.Amnesty International issued a statement Wednesday lauding passage of the resolution, saying the treaty will protect human rights.“The right of self-defense is a human right,” Gottlieb countered, “and in this country, the Second Amendment protects that right.“Just days ago as he campaigned for re-election,” he concluded, “Barack Obama told his supporters that voting is the ‘best revenge.’ I guess now we know what he was talking about.

The revenge he seeks is against American gun owners and their Second Amendment rights.”The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

-

HOURS AFTER REELECTION, OBAMA GREEN LIGHTS UNITED NATIONS GUN GRAB

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. | The New American

November 7, 2012

A story ran on the Oklahoma City NBC news affiliate on Wednesday reporting that “sporting goods stores in the Sooner state are seeing a spike in gun sales following President Barack Obama’s re-election.”

Similar reports ran nationwide after the president was elected the first time in 2008. While many accused those making a run on gun stores of reacting rashly, there may be some wisdom in this latest sales spike.Reuters reports that within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama ordered the U.S. United Nations delegation to vote in favor of a UN proposal to fast track an international gun control treaty.

Immediately the word went out that the United States was going to play ball (after having scuttled the last round of talks on the Arms Trade Treaty in July), and a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.A press release was sent out early Wednesday morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference:Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty.

That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the Conference’s president on 26 July would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text.

The Committee approved the resolution as a whole by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions.No member, not even the United States, opposed the convening of a “Final United Nations Conference” for the establishment of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”

The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.

The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs.

An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT.Particulars of the proposed treaty are set out on the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs website. Information presented there reveals that the international government-in-waiting wants to start by taking away weapons from “insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, and terrorists.” Again, key definitions are left out of the document and others inexplicably and inexcusably ill-defined.

Within the penumbras of these cleverly crafted provisions are found lurking the tools of tyranny. Wrenches that one day could force anyone branded as an enemy into a predetermined “terrorist” slot.A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however.

On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General’s Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms  (of which the United States was a signatory) a part of the regulations that we agreed to impose is a psychological test before one is allowed to purchase ammunition.Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.

How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately-owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”

Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.

This brings to mind the imminent deployment by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices later this month, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year.

History is instructive on this point as one recalls that the “shot heard ‘round the world” on Lexington Green was fired because King George sent British troops to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.A late night call from newly reelected President Obama to the UN has awakened Americans’ opposition to this latest attempt to abrogate the rights protected by the Second Amendment. It was a different late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and representatives of our own federal government.

-

AFTER OBAMA WIN, U.S. BACKS NEW U.N. ARMS TREATY TALKS

By Louis Charbonneau

November 7, 2012

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States – along with Russia and other major arms producers – said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama’s win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington’s objectives have not changed.

“We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” the official said.

“We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States – the world’s biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers – reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

‘MONTHS AWAY’ FROM DEAL?

Countries that abstained included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. China, a major arms producer that has traditionally abstained, voted in favor.

Among the top six arms-exporting nations, Russia cast the only abstention. Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution.

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are “determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty.”

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

“In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now,” he said. “We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place.”

Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: “After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.”

The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.

Britain’s U.N. mission said on its Twitter feed it hoped that the March negotiations would yield the final text of a treaty. Such a pact would then need to be ratified by the individual signatories before it could enter into force.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. interest group, strongly opposes the arms treaty and had endorsed Romney.

The United States has denied it sought to delay negotiations for political reasons, saying it had genuine problems with the draft as written.

–

UN GLOBAL GUN BAN FLIMFLAM

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
New American
November 27, 2012

On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0(with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.

China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage.

As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.

Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.

Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.

As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28, 2013 at the UN headquarters in New York City.

That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.

Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.

Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text.

The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.

In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”

The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.

Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:

After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.

The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.

With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.

After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.

Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.

A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?

The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General’s Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms  (of which the United States was a signatory), a part of the regulations agreed to by the United States is the administering of a psychological test before a person is cleared to buy ammunition.

Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.

How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.

This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”

Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.

In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.

This will be made much easier when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gets its hands on the portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices before the end of the year, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year.

The UN’s effort to collect ammo from those they wish to oppress (a disarmed society is a slave society) is nothing new. The “shot heard ’round the world” on Lexington Green in 1775 was fired because British troops planned to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.

Perhaps our reporting on the president’s late-night call putting the wheels of global gun control in motion will awaken modern Americans to the threat to our sacred Second Amendment rights. After all, it was a late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and agents of our own federal government.

-

DICK MORRIS: NEW UNITED NATIONS PUSH FOR GUN CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES

The ink wasn’t even dry on the election returns before Obama agreed to renew talks on the UN Arms Trade Treaty…UN gun control is coming! See the video!  We need your help now more than ever!

-

-

Sign The Petition To Stop The Arms Trade Treaty!

UN GUN CONTROL IS BACK!

Dear Friend,

After a wave of outrage stopped President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from signing the proposed UN Gun Control Treaty (called the UN Arms Trade Treaty), the treaty advocates are back with a devilish new strategy!

As we warned in Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom, the gun control advocates won’t stop trying to impose gun controls on the United States through an international treaty to override the Second Amendment.

The plan was to sign the treaty on July 27th in New York, but you sent 700,000 emails through our web site (www.DickMorris.com) alone to the Senate and that led 51 Senators to urge Hillary not to sign.  She backed off and the negotiations ended.

Now advocates of the Treaty, as we predicted, are back and have introduced a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for the resumption of negotiations and outlining a new procedure to get it passed even if the US objects.

Under their plan — likely to be approved later this month by the General Assembly — the negotiators are not going to seek consensus (read: U.S. approval) but will write the Treaty as they please and introduce it to the General Assembly for approval.  If two-thirds of the Assembly vote for the treaty (a foregone conclusion), then it will be submitted to the nations of the world for signature and ratification.  Nobody will be able to change the Treaty, they have the option of signing or not.

When sixty nations have signed, the Treaty will take effect and be binding on those who have signed and ratified it.

Here’s the rest of the plan:  After the election is over, Obama and Hillary will probably sign the Treaty.  They then won’t submit it for ratification since, under the Vienna Convention, it takes effect automatically on their signature even without Senate ratification.  That means that the Treaty takes full effect unless one of two things happen:

(a)  Either the Senate votes to kill the Treaty, or

(b)  The president or a future president renounces it

The first option won’t happen.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t permit the Treaty to come up for a vote in the lame duck Senate session that begins after Election Day.  He knows it would lose.  So, as long as Obama is president and he doesn’t renounce the Treaty, it will take effect without Senate action.

We need to mobilize to stop this end run around our Constitution.  Once the Arms Trade Treaty is signed by Obama, it will open the door to international gun controls imposed by the Geneva-based enforcers of the Treaty.

(Nominally, the Treaty bars the exportation of small arms by private individuals or companies to foreign countries.  But, in its enforcement, it obliges signatory countries to require registration of the small arms in their citizens’ possession.  And, if that fails to stop the export of small arms, it empowers the global body to take further steps, likely to include prohibition and confiscation.

Please sign this petition to stop the Arms Trade Treaty.  We succeeded before in forcing a postponement, now let’s stop the Treaty and kill it entirely.

To do this, please send this email all over the place so it goes viral and we get millions of emails to deluge the Senate, the President, Hillary, and the UN.

We’ll add your e-mail address to our Alerts list so we can keep you posted on progress and next steps.

Thanks,

Dick Morris

Sign The Petition To Stop The Arms Trade Treaty!

-

Dear fellow American,

Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE the United States to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.I’m helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate and I want your help.There’s no time to waste.  You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.

They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.But now time may not be on our side.In fact, we’re likely to only have a few weeks to defeat the treaty when they make their move.And we definitely don’t have a President in the White House who will oppose this treaty.

So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.With new pro-gun champions joining me in the Senate, rounding up enough votes to kill this thing should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.Even with the Republican tidal wave in November, there still isn’t a pro-gun majority in the Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.

You know just as well as I do how few Senators are truly “pro-gun.”Not only that, but many Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President — especially with “international prestige” at stake.

They look at ratifying treaties much like approving the President’s Supreme Court nominees.

Remember how many Senators turned their back on us and voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?A dozen more only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.

So if we’re going to defeat the UN’s Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!

Please join me by taking a public stand AGAINST this outright assault on our national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty today!For Freedom,

Rand Paul
U.S. Senator (R-KY)-

HELP RAND PAUL DEFEAT THE UNITED NATIONS SMALL ARMS TREATY – NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS

-The National Association for Gun Rights is dedicated to protecting your Second Amendment rights.  We will never stop fighting the constant onslaught of anti-gun legislation from Sarah Brady’s cronies in Congress, but overcoming such a well-financed enemy is a difficult battle.  

---

The National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. is a non-profit, tax-exempt advocacy organization under section 501(c)4 of the IRC. Contributions or gifts to NAGR are not tax deductible for IRS purposes.  Not paid for at taxpayer expense.

Copyright © 2011 National Association for Gun Rights

–

-

PRESIDENT OBAMA INTRODUCES A PLAN TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA

-

By Colleen Curtis | The White House

January 16, 2013

President Obama today announced a series of sweeping reforms that will help curb gun violence in our nation.

In front of a crowd that included victims of gun violence, families who lost loved ones to gun violence, elected officials, and school children who had written letters asking him to do something to prevent more senseless massacres like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the President introduced a comprehensive proposal that will make it easier to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and will give law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and the public health community the tools they need to help reduce gun violence, and keep our children safe.

“This is our first task as a society,” the President said. “This is how we will be judged.  And their voices should compel us to change.”

These actions are the result of the effort led by Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Cabinet to come up with concrete steps that we can take right now to keep our children safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country.

The President acknowledged that implementing some of these changes will be difficult, but vowed to make it a priority: “I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality. Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence – if even one life can be saved – we have an obligation to try.”

While President Obama will sign 23 Executive Actions today that will help keep our kids safe, he was clear that he cannot and should not act alone: The most important changes depend on Congressional action. The President is calling on lawmakers to pass some specific proposals, including the elimination of all loopholes and require a universal background check on anyone trying to buy a gun, restoring the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines, and creating tougher penalties on people who buy guns with the express purpose of reselling them to criminals.

President Obama also affirmed his belief that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, and stressed that, like most Americans, he believes that we all have a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to ensure guns are used safely:

I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown.  That’s what these reforms are designed to do. They’re common-sense measures. They have the support of the majority of the American people.

–

LIST OF 23 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS IN GUN VIOLENCE REDUCTION MEASURES

At President Obama’s announcement on new steps to be taken in an effort to control gun violence in the U.S., the president will sign measures which will initiate 23 separate executive actions on gun violence.

The Office of the Press Secretary sent out the following list of all 23 executive actions.

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

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.

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

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.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

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

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

-

PRESIDENT OBAMA: NOW IS THE TIME TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE

Published on Jan 19, 2013

President Obama reiterates his commitment to do everything in his power to implement a series of commonsense measures that would reduce gun violence in America. The President started off that effort with 23 concrete actions his Administration is taking immediately under its existing legal authority. But to have a lasting impact, Congress must join the administration by passing commonsense laws like requiring a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun, and restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines. If they do that, we can respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while helping to keep the irresponsible few from causing massive harm.

-

-

FACT SHEET ON THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA

Below is the information released from the White House on Wednesday detailing the president’s plan to reduce gun violence.

Our nation has suffered too much at the hands of dangerous people who use guns to commit horrific acts of violence. As President Obama said following the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, “We won’t be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try.”

Most gun owners are responsible and law-abiding, and they use their guns safely. The President strongly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. But to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson, there are four common-sense steps we can take right now.

The President’s plan includes:
1. Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands;
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence;
3. Making schools safer; and
4. Increasing access to mental health services.

While no law or set of laws will end gun violence, it is clear that the American people want action. If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and the country we love.

1. CLOSING BACKGROUND CHECK LOOPHOLES TO KEEP GUNS OUT OF DANGEROUS HANDS
Most gun owners buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for self-defense, hunting or sport shooting. Yet too often, irresponsible and dangerous individuals have been able to easily get their hands on firearms. We must strengthen our efforts to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands.

REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL GUN SALES: The single most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence and mass shootings, like the one in Newtown, is to make sure those who would commit acts of violence cannot get access to guns. A critical tool in achieving that goal is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which was created by the Brady Act to ensure that guns are not sold to those prohibited from buying them, including felons and those convicted of domestic violence. Over the last 14 years it has helped keep more than 1.5 million guns out of the wrong hands. It is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot. However, too many guns are still sold without a background check and too many individuals prohibited from having a gun slip through the cracks. We need to strengthen the system by requiring every gun buyer to go through a background check and ensuring that the background check system has complete information on people prohibited from having guns. We should:

Require criminal background checks for all gun sales: Right now, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on those buying guns, but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement. A national survey of inmates found that only 12 percent of those who used a gun in a crime acquired it from a retail store or pawn shop, where a background check should have been run. Congress should pass legislation that goes beyond just closing the “gun show loophole” to require background checks for all firearm sales, with limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.
Call on licensed dealers and private sellers to do their part through executive action: Private sellers can already choose to sell their guns through licensed dealers so the dealer can run a background check on the buyer, and the Administration is calling on them to do so. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will send an open letter to licensed dealers giving them guidance on how best to facilitate these checks.

STRENGTHEN THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM: The background check system is the most efficient and effective way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, but we need to make sure it has access to complete information about these individuals. For example, although the number of mental health records available to the system has increased by 800 percent since 2004, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that there are still 17 states that have made fewer than 10 mental health records available. We need to make sure reliable data on prohibited purchasers is available to the background check system. The Administration is announcing four new executive actions to enhance the system’s ability to identify dangerous people and stop them from getting guns:

Address unnecessary legal barriers that prevent states from reporting information about those prohibited from having guns: Some states have cited concerns about restrictions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as a reason not to share relevant information on people prohibited from gun ownership for mental health reasons. The Administration will begin the regulatory process to remove any needless barriers, starting by gathering information about the scope and extent of the problem.

Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system: States are a critical source for several key categories of relevant records and data, including criminal history records and records of persons prohibited from having guns for mental health reasons. The Department of Justice will invest $20 million in FY2013 to give states stronger incentives to make this data available. The Administration is also proposing $50 million for this purpose in FY2014, and will look for additional ways to ensure that states are doing their part to provide relevant information.

Hold federal agencies accountable for sharing reliable information with the background check system: Some federal agencies also have relevant records. The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum holding agencies to requirements that they identify these records, make them available to the background check system, and regularly report that those records are complete and up-to-date.

Make sure dangerous people are prohibited from having guns: The background check system is designed to keep guns out of the hands of those forbidden by law to have them. But we need to make sure our laws are effective at identifying the dangerous or untrustworthy individuals that should not have access to guns. The President will direct the Attorney General, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to review the laws governing who is prohibited from having guns and make legislative and executive recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren’t slipping through the cracks.

2. BANNING MILITARY-STYLE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES, AND TAKING OTHER COMMON-SENSE STEPS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE

We need to do more to prevent easy access to instruments of mass violence. We also need to provide law enforcement with additional tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make sure health care providers know they can report credible threats of violence and talk to their patients about gun safety, and promote responsible gun ownership.

GET MILITARY-STYLE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES OFF THE STREETS: A 2010 survey by the Police Executive Research Forum found that more than one-third of police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons expired in 2004. To protect law enforcement and enhance public safety, we must redouble our efforts to:

Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons: The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.

Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: The case for prohibiting high-capacity magazines has been proven over and over; the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which would have been prohibited under the 1994 law. These magazines enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence, yet they are once again legal and now come standard with many handguns and rifles. Congress needs to reinstate the prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets: It is already illegal to manufacture and import armor-piercing ammunition except for military or law enforcement use. But it is generally still not illegal to possess or transfer this dangerous ammunition. Congress should finish the job of protecting law enforcement and the public by banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition by, and its transfer to, anyone other than the military and law enforcement.

GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO PREVENT AND PROSECUTE GUN CRIME: In order to prevent and respond to gun violence, we must give law enforcement every tool they need to keep us safe. That includes passing stronger laws to stop those who would put guns into the hands of criminals, keeping 15,000 cops on the street, and eliminating restrictions that keep federal law enforcement from doing its job.

Create serious punishments for gun trafficking: Today, criminals can easily buy guns from unlicensed dealers, or acquire them with the help of so-called “straw purchasers” who pass the required background check to buy guns from licensed dealers. But there is no explicit law against straw purchasing, so straw purchasers and others who traffic guns can often only be prosecuted for paperwork violations. We cannot allow those who help put guns into the hands of criminals to get away with just a slap on the wrist. Congress should close these loopholes with new gun trafficking laws that impose serious penalties for these crimes.

Help communities across the country keep 15,000 cops on the street: One of the most important steps we can take to reduce gun violence is to keep police officers at their posts in our neighborhoods and communities. The President is calling on Congress to act on the Administration’s $4 billion proposal to help keep 15,000 cops on the street in cities and towns across the country.

Take executive action to enhance tracing data: When law enforcement recovers a gun during a criminal investigation, they can trace that gun’s path from its manufacturer, to the dealer who sold it, to its first purchaser. This gun tracing process helps law enforcement solve violent crimes by generating leads in specific cases and can reveal gun trafficking patterns when large amounts of tracing data is combined. However, not all federal law enforcement agencies are uniformly required to trace all guns they recover and keep in custody. The President will issue a Presidential Memorandum requiring them to trace all such firearms.

Take executive action to help law enforcement avoid returning guns to the wrong hands: Law enforcement should never be put in the position of unknowingly returning a gun to an individual who is prohibited from having it. Currently, when law enforcement must return firearms seized as part of an investigation, they do not have the ability to conduct a full background check on the owner. The Administration will propose regulations to ensure that law enforcement has access to the database needed for complete background checks.

Finally give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) a confirmed director: The ATF has not had a confirmed director for six years. There is no excuse for leaving the key agency enforcing gun laws in America without a leader. It is time for Congress to confirm an ATF director.

Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age: ATF is required to authorize the importation of certain “curio or relic” firearms, and outdated regulations include all firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago in the definition of “curio or relic.” But today, firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago include large numbers of semiautomatic military-surplus rifles, some of which are easily convertible into machine guns or otherwise appealing for use in crime. Congress should get rid of restrictions that prevent ATF from changing this definition, enabling ATF to ensure that firearms imported as curios or relics are actually of interest as collectibles, rather than letting these rules be used as a way to acquire fully functional and powerful military weapons.

Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime: The Attorney General will work with all United States Attorneys to continue to ensure that every appropriate resource is focused on preventing gun violence. To this end, the Attorney General will ask all U.S. Attorneys to consider whether supplemental efforts would be appropriate in their districts, in areas such as prosecutions of people who have been convicted of a felony and illegally seek to obtain a firearm, or people who attempt to evade the background check system by providing false information.

Analyze information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement: The Department of Justice will publish an annual report on lost and stolen guns to ensure that data collected by ATF is available. This report will include state-by-state statistics about guns reported as missing. Making this data available will provide valuable information to law enforcement about how to target its resources, and give states and cities the information they need to pass laws and take other effective steps to make sure that lost and stolen guns are reported. The Department will also identify best practices that are working today and encourage states and cities to follow those models.

Provide effective training for active shooter situations for 14,000 law enforcement officers, first responders, and school officials: One of the best ways to minimize the loss of life in a mass shooting is to make sure law enforcement, first responders, school officials, and others are prepared to respond to an active shooter. The Administration will immediately expand access to federal training, and federal agencies will ensure that protocols for responding to active shooter situations are consistent. And Congress should provide an additional $14 million to help train 14,000 more police officers and other public and private personnel to respond to active shooter situations.

END THE FREEZE ON GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH: There are approximately 30,000 firearm-related homicides and suicides a year, a number large enough to make clear this is a public health crisis. But for years, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other scientific agencies have been barred by Congress from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control,” and some members of Congress have claimed this prohibition also bans the CDC from conducting any research on the causes of gun violence. However, research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.

Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence: The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. It is based on legal analysis that concludes such research is not prohibited by any appropriations language. The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.

Better understand how and when firearms are used in violent death: To research gun violence prevention, we also need better data. When firearms are used in homicides or suicides, the National Violent Death Reporting System collects anonymous data, including the type of firearm used, whether the firearm was stored loaded or locked, and details on youth gun access. Congress should invest an additional $20 million to expand this system from the 18 states currently participating to all 50 states, helping Americans better understand how and when firearms are used in a violent death and informing future research and prevention strategies.

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

ENCOURAGE GUN OWNERS TO LIVE UP TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO STORE GUNS SAFELY: The President believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, and he respects our nation’s rich hunting and sport shooting traditions and the millions of responsible Americans who participate in them every year. But this right comes with a responsibility to safely store guns to prevent them from accidentally or intentionally being used to harm others. The Administration is encouraging gun owners to take responsibility for keeping their guns safe and encouraging the development of technology that will make it easier for gun owners to meet this responsibility, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission is assessing the need for new standards for gun locks.

Launch a national responsible gun ownership campaign: The Administration will encourage gun owners to take responsibility for keeping their guns safe with a national campaign. The campaign will promote common-sense gun safety measures like the use of gun safes and trigger locks, separate storage of guns and ammunition, and the reporting of lost and stolen weapons to law enforcement.
Review and enhance as warranted safety standards for gun locks and gun safes: We also need to make sure that gun locks and gun safes work as intended. Several gun locks have been subject to recall due to their failure to function properly; that is not acceptable. The Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) intends to review the effectiveness of gun locks and gun safes, including existing voluntary industry standards, and take any steps that may be warranted to improve the standards as well as to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death that arise when those products within the CPSC’s jurisdiction fail.

Encourage the development of innovative gun safety technology: Despite rapid advances in technologies in recent years, there are few readily available firearms that utilize these new technologies to help guard against unauthorized access and use. The President is directing the Attorney General to work with technology experts to review existing and emerging gun safety technologies, and to issue a report on the availability and use of those technologies. In addition, the Administration will issue a challenge to the private sector to develop innovative and cost-effective gun safety technology and provide prizes for those technologies that are proven to be reliable and effective.

3. MAKING SCHOOLS SAFER

We need to make our schools safer, not only by enhancing their physical security and making sure they are prepared to respond to emergencies like a mass shooting, but also by creating safer and more nurturing school climates that help prevent school violence. Each school is different and should have the flexibility to address its most pressing needs. Some schools will want trained and armed police; others may prefer increased counseling services. Either way, each district should be able to choose what is best to protect its own students.

PUT UP TO 1,000 MORE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS AND COUNSELORS IN SCHOOLS AND HELP SCHOOLS INVEST IN SAFETY: Putting school resource

officers and mental health professionals in schools can help prevent school crime and student-on-student violence. School resource officers are specially trained police officers that work in schools. When equipped with proper training and supported by evidence-based school discipline policies, they can deter crime with their presence and advance community policing objectives. Their roles as teachers and counselors enable them to develop trusting relationships with students that can result in threats being detected and crises averted before they occur. School psychologists, social workers, and counselors can help create a safe and nurturing school climate by providing mental health services to students who need help. Not every school will want police officers or additional school counselors, but we should do what we can to help schools get the staff they determine they need to stay safe.

Take executive action to provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers: COPS Hiring Grants, which help police departments hire officers, can already be used by departments to fund school resource officers. This year, the Department of Justice will provide an incentive for police departments to hire these officers by providing a preference for grant applications that support school resource officers.

Put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job: The Administration is proposing a new Comprehensive School Safety program, which will help school districts hire staff and make other critical investments in school safety. The program will give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The Department of Justice will also develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students.
Invest in other strategies to make our schools safer: School districts could also use these Comprehensive School Safety Grants to purchase school safety equipment; develop and update public safety plans; conduct threat assessments; and train “crisis intervention teams” of law enforcement officers to work with the mental health community to respond to and assist students in crisis. And the General Services Administration will use its purchasing power to help schools buy safety equipment affordably.

ENSURE EVERY SCHOOL HAS A COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN: In the unthinkable event of another school shooting, it is essential that schools have in place effective and reliable plans to respond. A 2010 survey found that while 84 percent of public schools had a written response plan in the event of a shooting, only 52 percent had drilled their students on the plan in the past year. We must ensure that every school has a high-quality plan in place and that students and staff are prepared to follow it.

Give schools and other institutions a model for how to develop and implement reliable plans: The Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security will release-by May 2013-a set of model, high-quality emergency management plans for schools, houses of worship, and institutions of higher education, along with best practices for developing these plans and training students and staff to follow them. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of Justice, will assist interested schools, houses of worship, and institutions of higher education in completing their own security assessments.

Help schools develop and implement emergency plans: Congress should provide $30 million of one-time grants to states to help their school districts develop and implement emergency management plans. But schools also need to take responsibility for getting effective plans in place. Going forward, Congress should require states and school districts that receive school safety funding from the Department of Education to have comprehensive, up-to-date emergency plans in place for all of their schools.

CREATE A SAFER CLIMATE AT SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY: A report issued by the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Education after the Columbine shooting found that one of the best things schools can do to reduce violence and bullying is to improve a school’s climate and increase trust and communication between students and staff. Fortunately, we already have evidence-based strategies which have been found to reduce bullying and other problem behaviors like drug abuse or poor attendance, while making students feel safer at school and improving academic performance.

Help 8,000 schools create safer and more nurturing school climates: With technical assistance from the Department of Education, 18,000 schools have already put in place evidence-based strategies to improve school climate. These strategies involve certain steps for the whole school (like consistent rules and rewards for good behavior), with more intensive steps for groups of students exhibiting at-risk behavior, and individual services for students who continue to exhibit troubling behavior. The Administration is proposing a new, $50 million initiative to help 8,000 more schools train their teachers and other school staff to implement these strategies. The Administration will also develop a school climate survey, providing reliable data to help schools implement policies to improve climate.

Share best practices on school discipline: Students who are suspended or expelled are far more likely to repeat a grade, not graduate, or become involved in the juvenile justice system. As a result, effective school discipline policies are critical to addressing school and community crime and violence issues. The Department of Education will collect and disseminate best practices on school discipline polices and help school districts develop and equitably implement their policies.

4. IMPROVING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
As President Obama said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun.” Today, less half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. While the vast majority of Americans with a mental illness are not violent, several recent mass shootings have highlighted how some cases of mental illness can develop into crisis situations if individuals do not receive proper treatment. We need to do more than just keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental illness; we need to identify mental health issues early and help individuals get the treatment they need before these dangerous situations develop.

MAKE SURE STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS GET TREATMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES: Three-quarters of mental illnesses appear by the age of 24, yet less than half of children with diagnosable mental health problems receive treatment. And several recent mass shootings, including those at Newtown, Tucson, Aurora, and Virginia Tech, were perpetrated by students or other young people.

Reach 750,000 young people through programs to identify mental illness early and refer them to treatment: We need to train teachers and other adults who regularly interact with students to recognize young people who need help and ensure they are referred to mental health services. The Administration is calling for a new initiative, Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education), to provide this training and set up systems to provide these referrals. This initiative, which would reach 750,000 young people, has two parts:

• Provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers: Project AWARE includes $15 million for training for teachers and other adults who interact with youth to detect and respond to mental illness in children and young adults, including how to encourage adolescents and families experiencing these problems to seek treatment.
• Make sure students with signs of mental illness get referred to treatment: Project AWARE also includes $40 million to help school districts work with law enforcement, mental health agencies, and other local organizations to assure students with mental health issues or other behavioral issues are referred to the services they need. This initiative builds on strategies that, for over a decade, have proven to decrease violence in schools and increase the number of students receiving mental health services.
• Support individuals ages 16 to 25 at high risk for mental illness: Efforts to prevent school shootings and other gun violence can’t end when a student leaves high school. Individuals ages 16 to 25 are at high risk for mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide, but they are among the least likely to seek help. Even those who received services as a child may fall through the cracks when they turn 18. The Administration is proposing $25 million for innovative state-based strategies supporting young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.

Helping schools address pervasive violence: Twenty-two percent of 14 to 17 year olds have witnessed a shooting in their lifetime. Research shows that exposure to community violence can impact children’s mental health and development and can substantially increase the likelihood that these children will later commit violent acts themselves. To help schools break the cycle of violence, Congress should provide $25 million to offer students mental health services for trauma or anxiety, conflict resolution programs, and other school-based violence prevention strategies.

Train more than 5,000 additional mental health professionals to serve students and young adults: Experts often cite the shortage of mental health service providers as one reason it can be hard to access treatment. To help fill this gap, the Administration is proposing $50 million to train social workers, counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals. This would provide stipends and tuition reimbursement to train more than 5,000 mental health professionals serving young people in our schools and communities.

Launch a national conversation to increase understanding about mental health: The sense of shame and secrecy associated with mental illness prevents too many people from seeking help. The President is directing Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan to launch a national dialogue about mental illness with young people who have experienced mental illness, members of the faith community, foundations, and school and business leaders.

ENSURE COVERAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT: While most mental illnesses are treatable, those with mental illness often can’t get needed treatment if they don’t have health insurance that covers mental health services. The Affordable Care Act will provide one of the largest expansions of mental health coverage in a generation by extending health coverage to 30 million Americans, including an estimated 6 to 10 million people with mental illness. The Affordable Care Act will also make sure that Americans can get the mental health treatment they need by ensuring that insurance plans cover mental health benefits at parity with other benefits.

Finalize requirements for private health insurance plans to cover mental health services: The Administration will issue final regulations governing how existing group health plans that offer mental health services must cover them at parity under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. In addition, the Affordable Care Act requires all new small group and individual plans to cover ten essential health benefit categories, including mental health and substance abuse services. The Administration intends to issue next month the final rule defining these essential health benefits and implementing requirements for these plans to cover mental health benefits at parity with medical and surgical benefits.

Make sure millions of Americans covered by Medicaid get quality mental health coverage: Medicaid is already the biggest funder of mental health services, and the Affordable Care Act will extend Medicaid coverage to as many as 17 million hardworking Americans. There is some evidence that Medicaid plans are not always meeting mental health parity requirements today, an issue that will only become more important as Medicaid is expanded. The Administration is issuing a letter to state health officials making clear that these plans must comply with mental health parity requirements.

-

-

YES, HITLER REALLY DID TAKE THE GUNS FROM JEWS BEFORE THROWING THEM INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS (OR GAS CHAMBERS)

by: J. D. Heyes

Monday, March 25, 2013

(NaturalNews) They say those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it, but then again, sometimes repeating history is exactly the point, as longtime anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s new “assault weapons ban” planned legislation for early next year proves.

Feinstein, a California Democrat, was instrumental in enacting a similar piece of legislation in 1994; with the help of President Clinton and Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, that ban lasted a decade before being allowed to expire by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2004.

But her current measure would go much further and, in many ways, actually mirrors anti-gun measures enacted nearly 75 years ago by Nazi leader Adolph Hitler, in a bid to disarm a particular ethnic group he loathed.

This is gun control redux

Prior to 1938, when Hitler’s new restrictions were put in place, the earlier Weimar Republic government had already enacted gun registration. “The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power,” says Clayton Cramer, author of the book Firing Back, as told to the website The Straight Dope. So what Hitler essentially did was strengthen existing German law (which was aimed primarily at preventing Jews from being armed).

And that is the all-important difference. Bernard E. Harcourt, writing for the University of Chicago Law School and Political Science Department, notes:

If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms.

The point was, Hitler had it in for the Jews, so he first disarmed them before carrying out his murderous campaign against them. And, unable to resist, millions died.

“In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the holocaust,” National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote in his book, “Gun, Crimes and Freedom.”

Nothing new under the sun

Here are some key aspects of the 1938 law:

– Police permission was required to own a handgun;

– All firearms had to be registered;

– Any Germans who enjoyed shooting bolt-action rifles were told to join the army “if they wished to shoot ‘military’ rifles,” writes LaPierre, in his book;

– The Nazi regime “also enacted the “Regulations against Jews’ possession of weapons” within the days of Kristallnacht – the ‘night of broken glass’ – when stormtroopers attacked synagogues and Jews throughout Germany,” he wrote;

– Firearms registration lists were used to identify (and persecute) gun owners (bear in mind that a New York newspaper just published the names and addresses of legal handgun permit holders after obtaining them via a Freedom of Information Act request, because permit holders by the very nature of obtaining the permit had to be registered [http://www.naturalnews.com/038479_gun_owners_New_York_newspaper.html]).

Let’s compare these Nazi-era gun control requirements to what Feinstein is proposing. As posted on her Senate website, her legislation would:

– Ban the sale, transfer, importation or manufacture of 120 specifically-named firearms;

– “Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics;”

– “Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds;”

– Require that currently owned weapons that would be grandfathered in nevertheless be registered under the National Firearms Act;

– Require a background check of any owner and/or transferee;

– Provide the government with the type and serial number of the weapon;

– Require a photograph and fingerprint to be on file with the government;

– “Dedicated funding for [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] to implement registration” of firearms (keep in mind the BATF is the federal agency responsible for launching “Operation Fast and Furious,” in which federal agents supplied thousands of weapons Feinstein wants to ban to Mexican drug gangs, several of which have since been tied to the murders of Mexican citizens and U.S. federal agents [http://www.naturalnews.com]).

What we’ve seen before, we may see again

It doesn’t take a genius (or conspiracy theorist) to figure out the parallels between Nazi gun control laws and some of the same provisions being pushed by Feinstein. Understanding that our country is not a totalitarian state (yet), Feinstein and other gun-controllers like President Obama, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others all know they have to take a longer, more measured approach to disarming the U.S. public, that they can’t just mandate it overnight.

But make no mistake, new gun control laws like those being proposed are nothing more than rehashed mandates dredged up from the past, with similar intentions: To make political opponents and the masses less powerful and less able to resist.

-

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.

-

23 EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON FEDERAL GUN GRAB EXPLAINED

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 19, 2013

On Wednesday, President Obama signed 23 executive orders. According to the Office of the Press Secretary, those EOs outlined the intentions of the administration as follows:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
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.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
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.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Beyond the executive orders, there were a few presidential memorandums to compliment and further implement the Obama administration’s all-out attack on the 2nd Amendment.

Presidential Memorandum, “Tracing of Firearms in Connection with Criminal Investigations” is an “effort ensuring that law enforcement agencies at all levels — Federal, State, and local” are able to trace firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), under the Department of Justice (DoJ), will be charged with this responsibility.

As an “investigative tool”, tracing firearms will (among other things) provide data to the federal government to be used as “valuable intelligence about local, regional, and national patterns relating to the movement and sources of guns.” This is crucial for the “development of enforcement strategies” when investigating crimes and gun trafficking; whether domestic or “across the Southwest border.”

Obama demands that federal agencies trace all gun apprehended because if they did not, they would “not only be depriving themselves of critical information in specific cases, but may also be depriving all Federal, State, and local agencies of the value of complete information for aggregate analyses.”

Agencies identified to respond to firearm tracing are:

• The US State Department
• The US Treasury
• The Department of Defense (DoD)
• The Department of Justice (DoJ)
• The Department of the Interior
• The Department of Agriculture
• The Department of Energy
• The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Presidential Memorandum, “Improving Availability of Relevant Executive Branch Records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System” references the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which determines “whether an individual is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm depends on the completeness and accuracy of the information made available to it by Federal, State, and tribal authorities.”

Obama has authorized the DoJ to “issue guidance to agencies regarding the identification and sharing of relevant Federal records and their submission to the NICS.” Those agencies now subject to the DoJ will “submit a report” to the agency explaining their “relevant records” and the drafting of “an implementation plan for making information in those records available to the NICS, consistent with applicable law.”

The NICS Consultation and Coordination Working Group (CCWG) will be established to ensure that the NICS is able to perform adequately and according to the Obama administration’s standards. The CCWG’s function will be to:

• Gathering intelligence and records for the DoJ
• Outline problems in record keeping from other agencies
• Implement notice and relief from disabilities programs
• Correct, modify, or remove records deemed unnecessary

The CCWG will be chaired by the Attorney General and have representatives from:

• DoD
• The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
• The Department of Transportation (DOT)
• VA
• DHS
• The Social Security Administration (SSA)
• The Office of Personal Management (OPM)
• The Office of Management and Budget
• Other agencies designated by the Attorney General

Presidential Memorandum, “Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence” empowers the Secretary of DHHS and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , as well as “other scientific agencies within” the DHHS to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”

The Secretary of DHS will “begin by identifying the most pressing research questions with the greatest potential public health impact, and by assessing existing public health interventions being implemented across the Nation to prevent gun violence.”

-

OBAMA ASKS DOCTORS TO HELP DEAL WITH GUNS

By DANIEL HALPER | The Weekly Standard

January 16, 2013

According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here’s the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

 Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

 Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

-

OBAMA’S 23 EXECUTIVE ORDERS: DOCTORS BECOME SNITCHES, GUN OWNERSHIP IS A ‘DISEASE’ AND MORE

Mike Adams
Natural News
Jan 17, 2013

As promised, President Obama has issued 23 executive orders as part of his campaign to disarm the American people and strip them of their Second Amendment rights. These executive orders include things like turning doctors into police state snitches by order them to “ask patients about their guns.”

It also orders the CDC to begin studying gun violence and gun ownership as if it were a “disease.” This will no doubt become part of the mental health “solution” to disarming the public. Anyone who expresses a desire to own a gun will simply be labeled mentally ill and then denied the ability to purchase or possess otherwise legal firearms.

The following description of the 23 executive orders was provided by the White House. These descriptions are almost certainly deceptions, so don’t take them at face value. The devil is in the details, as we all know, so until we get a chance to look at the actual wording of each executive order, we won’t really know what Obama is trying to pull outside of law, without Congress and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

There orders also completely ignore the issue of the psychiatric drugging of children, which we know is linked to nearly every school shooting that has taken place.

Furthermore, Obama has completely ignored the issue of violent video games, violent movies and violent television programming.

But here’s the list provided by the White House so far:

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

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.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
More In Guns

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.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

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

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

-

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO ‘EXPAND AND FORMALIZE COORDINATION’ ON GUN CONTROL EFFORTS

By MICHAEL WARREN | The Weekly Standard

January 16, 2013

Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, released a statement Wednesday saying she is “proud to support” the Obama administration’s efforts to “combat gun violence in our country.” Here’s more from Napolitano’s statement:

In the aftermath of the tragic Newtown shooting, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), together with the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the FBI have worked to identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings.  In the coming days, DHS will expand and formalize coordination of ongoing efforts intended to prevent future mass casualty shootings, improve preparedness, and to strengthen security and resilience in schools and other potential targets. DHS will work with partners at all levels of government, to address five critical areas intended to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings in the United States:  Prevention, Protection, Response, Education, and Research/Evaluation. DHS will also work with law enforcement to refresh, expand and prioritize the implementation of nationwide public awareness efforts such as the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign. This is a critical issue that requires immediate attention and I look forward to supporting the President and this Administration as we move ahead.

-

ALEX JONES: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DECLARES GUN OWNERS ARE TERRORISTS

-

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 17, 2013

Following Obama’s choreographed attack on the Second Amendment earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it will join the administration, the Justice Department and the FBI in a renewed attack on firearms.

Under the guise of preventing what is largely unpreventable short of disarming the entire country – eliminating “active shooter” situations – DHS boss Janet Napolitano announced on Wednesday she will work to “identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings,” in other words, disarming law-abiding gun owners.

The Department of Homeland Security is basically an interior ministry ostensibly created in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Although its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism, it has, since its creation in October of 2001, pursued its real and unstated objective – acting as an internal political police force tasked with undermining and attacking enemies of the ruling elite.

DHS: Global Elite’s Secret Political Police

The DHS is not dedicated to preventing “future mass casualty shootings,” as Napolitano recently stated, but is assigned the critical task of attacking political enemies considered a threat to the globalist status quo. From lurid fictional claims about “rightwing extremists” to shepherding a national effort to undermine and destroy an idealistic Occupy movement, the DHS has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a political secret police.

The “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” document leaked to the alternative media in 2009 set the stage for demonizing gun owners and Second Amendment advocates in addition to a panoply of other political groups derisively tagged as “rightwing extremist” by the government.

The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) also produced a document in 2009 warning about the danger of a purported “Modern Militia Movement,” including the likes of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. MIAC and fusion centers around the country coordinated with the DHS to “collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence” on the supposed threat of libertarians and constitutionalists, including Second Amendment advocates. Between 2004 and 2007, the DHS provided $254 million to fusion centers engaged in surveilling Americans considered a terrorist threat by the government.

Earlier this year, the DHS released a report, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008,” that employed the phrase “extreme right-wing, ethno-nationalist/separatist” to describe individuals and groups it claims pose a domestic terrorist threat.

Conflating liberty issues with racism is a deliberate attempt to further demonize Americans opposed to the policies of the federal government. Designating opposition as racist is a well-tread path taken by the corporate media and Democrats, particularly since the election of Obama.

According to the latest DHS report, “the new ‘terrorists’ in this country are the Americans who love liberty, hate unconstitutional government edicts and fear the bureaucrats running Washington, D.C.,” writes Pat Shannan. “Second Amendment advocates are at the top of this ‘terrorist’ list, but a mere ‘pro-life’ bumper sticker might be enough to make one suspect in the eyes of a dumbed-down cop who forgot his oath.”

Pentagon Joins Effort to Target Pro-Second Amendment Movement

More recently, the government enlisted a West Point think tank to produce propaganda detailing the so-called “far right” and warn about white supremacists teaming up with the “anti-federalist movement” to attack political enemies, the government and most notably the police.

The West Point report specifically targets the patriot movement and constitutionalists opposed to a federal government controlled by an international financial oligarchy. These violence-prone terrorists, the report states,

espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement. (Emphasis added.)

The last sentence in the above underscores the purpose of the report generated by the United States Military academy – demonizing libertarians, constitutionalists, and specifically advocates of the Second Amendment as violent terrorists who pose a direct threat to law enforcement. The effort is designed to radicalize the elite’s front line – police and first responders – and set them against the “far right.”

Establishment Media’s Orchestrated Propaganda Campaign

The establishment media’s concerted campaign against the Second Amendment has delivered a relentless barrage of polarizing and divisive propaganda in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre in December.

CBS Chief Washington Correspondent and anchor of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer, demonstrated the absurd lengths the establishment will go to trash the Constitution and sow fear and dissension of firearm ownership.

Following Obama’s speech earlier this week, Schieffer said dismantling the Second Amendment may present a formidable task, but one less daunting than passing civil rights legislation or defeating Nazi Germany in World War II.

Producing a relentless wave of skewed surveys and op-eds in favor of “gun control” and “gun safety” (the latest misleading euphemism) reveals the urgency of the effort to disarm America and render it helpless.

Conclusion: Law-abiding Gun Owners Are the Target, Not al-Qaeda Terrorists

It is now obvious what is going on in the wake of Sandy Hook – the establishment is finally pulling out the last remaining stops in its long envisioned disarmament of the American people in accord with its ultimate plan to usher in a one-world government and financial system. A well-armed and educated populace prevents the global elite from realizing this objective.

In order to realize this required disarmament, supporters and defenders of not only the Second Amendment but the Constitution at large must be branded as renegade terrorists who threaten police. The cynical propaganda effort to pose law enforcement against a growing liberty movement is key to the elite’s effort to impose an authoritarian police state on America, a plan that will not be successful if the American people are allowed to possess firearms more potent than 22 caliber bolt-action rifles.

-

MILITARY THINK-TANK SAYS CONSTITUTIONALISTS ARE A DANGEROUS AND VIOLENT THREAT

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 22, 2013

According to a paper entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right” published by Combating Terrorism Center, a think-tank at the West Point US Military Academy that the “far-right”, “anti-federalist” and groups that support “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government” are dangerous as “racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

The paper asserts that Islamic extremists are coercing populations in the Middle East, Africa and Asia to assist them in gaining power with the purpose of over-throwing the US government and its allies.

In 2012, the US Armed Forces have announced wars within its ranks as they claim white supremacists are joining the military to infiltrate and overthrow what is referred to as the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG).

The purveying scheme includes a secret infiltration of racists who are expressly trying to divide the US military. However, the controllers of this concept are the FBI-sponsored Southern Poverty Law (SPLC) Center and Anti-Defamation League (ADL) who are working with the military to train soldiers on how to spot extremists in their ranks. This is the military’s answer to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) See Something, Say Something campaign to create Stasi out of ordinary citizens.

The document states that these “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

It goes on to correlate modern movements supporting a return to a Constitutional Republic as being violent conservatives living in the past. The report reads: “While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

The report claims “while far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”

Back in 2011, Vice President Joe Biden accused the Tea Party of having “acted like terrorists” asserting that “we have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” This comment came on the heels of assertions that talking to representatives affiliated with the Tea Party are liken to discussing buracracy with Republicans with “guns to their heads” referencing that the Tea Party wielded violent authority of the political party.

In 2010, the “US Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028” was published and explains how armed forces in the US and overseas will behave in the future. Specific tactical operations, special “theater”, and organized forces are outlined along with the capabilities and priorities of the US armed divisions. In simple terms: a full spectrum operations manual that details stratagems both domestic and foreign.

As outlined in the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) processes are defined by operational environments in regard to battle space, effects, evaluation of threats and adversaries while determining the course of action. In regard to civil situations, and to maintain intelligence and operational purposes, preparations with regard to terrain are inconsequential.

The Marine Corp Intelligence Requirements Handbooks presents new methodology to combat civilian rebellions and is meant to inspire intelligence professionals working on computer-based intelligence efforts.

Contained within the US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations are outlines describing how the US military will use the arsenal at their disposal to quell domestic riots, confiscate firearms and kill Americans during times of mass civil unrest.

The explicit use of “deadly force” when confronting “dissidents” is clearly stated with the refusal of a “warning shot” and the directives toward weapons that rioters or demonstrators will experience in the name of continuity of government.

According to Doug Haggman’s DHS informant the plan concerning a false flag attack will coincide with a staged assignation attempt on Obama that will be linked to a white supremacist group that will be used to incite black and Hispanic Americans into starting riots all across the nation.

In this scenario a race war will be the situation needed to implement martial law effectively locking down the US, US Army control of the urban cities, erecting DHS checkpoints on all major points of travel, severe restrictions on travel for all citizens and the suspension of elections to ensure that Obama remain seated as the President of the US.

The DHS informant stated: “The DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that ‘a civil war’ is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.”

Reported in Haaretz back in 2010 the “Obama’s election may usher a political climate that could produce an assassination attempt…It is most likely, though, to be a lone assassin, rather than an organized network.”

The manufactured threat of US veterans stems from the 2009 Department of Homeland Security report entitled Rightwing Extremism. This report clearly outlined that veterans, because of their diverse training in tactical operations, would be a decisive threat to the US government’s plans to declare martial law against the American public in the near future. Defined in the document were domestic extremists, particularly white supremacists, were proposed to be the newest and most dangerous threat to the US since al-Qaeda.

While admitting that the agency had no definitive proof that “domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, [however] rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force have indicated to owners of gun shops and gun ranges the US government’s new definitions of domestic terrorist that coincide with their demonization of US veterans and propaganda claims that domestic terrorists are more of a threat than their manufactured insurgent groups like al-Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army.

Mainstream media has spun the propaganda perfectly by asserting that “the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

This plot hatched over a decade ago to frame veterans as the new terrorist Boogeyman is being played out in the theater of reality as more instances of staged attacks may be looming in the not so distant future. With intentions on destroying the 2nd Amendment, along with demonizing US troops have obvious implications. Former military are trained in tactical operations and could pose a threat to the marital law scenario that the DHS is planning on implementing just in time for the collapse of the US dollar.

-

DRILL CHARACTERIZES DISGRUNTLED SECOND AMENDMENT ADVOCATES AS TERRORISTS

Ohio exercise centers around WMD plot

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 18, 2013

A safety exercise involving police, national guard and emergency management officials in Portsmouth, Ohio was centered around the premise that individuals “disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment” plotted to use weapons of mass destruction to terrorize the local community.

The exercise, which took place yesterday, was run by the Ohio Army National Guard 52nd Civil Support Unit, Scioto County first responders as well as local law enforcement.

“The make-believe scenario is timely,” reports WSAZ News Channel 3, “Two school employees who are disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, plot to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the local community.”

The drill revolved around the scenario of the two pro-second amendment advocates killing a teacher before setting up a chemical lab to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Portsmouth Fire Chief Bill Raison said the exercise was necessary due to the threat of domestic terrorism.

“Most people think it’s not very likely. But we forget that there’s a lot of domestic terrorism. There’s organizations and things that go on within the United States that can be every bit as devastating as the international terrorism is. The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist event. So we need to understand that those kinds of potential are here on a domestic level. And then also I think we need to remember that we’re not exempt from international terrorism. In fact, if I wanted to terrorize this country I would terrorize small town America,” Raison told the Portsmouth Daily Times.

The portrayal of pro-second amendment advocates as violent terrorists is sure to raise some eyebrows amidst a national debate about gun control following the Sandy Hook school massacre.

However, as we have exhaustively documented in the past, this is by no means the first time that Americans with constitutionalist political views have been demonized as dangerous radicals by both federal and state authorities in the context of so-called safety drills.

A 2009 New York Times report detailed how Homeland Security was training boy scouts to take on and disarm “disgruntled veterans” who are described as “terrorists”.

A number of drills have also been focused around the scenario of homeschooling parents turning into violent terrorists, including an exercise for the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District in 2004 which depicted a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools bombing a school bus full of children.

Alex Jones has documented foreign troops being trained on U.S. soil to deal with “insurgents” since the late 1990′s as part of “urban warfare drills”.

In March 2009 we broke the story of the infamous MIAC report, leaked to us by two concerned Missouri police officers. The report listed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists.

A study released last year funded by the Department of Homeland Security also characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TARGETS GUN COLLECTOR

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 1, 2013

KRQE in Albuquerque, New Mexico, reports that the Department of Homeland Security – the federal agency initially established to protect the United States from terrorists and respond to natural disasters – has used its ICE division to bust a gun collector.

Federal Homeland Security Investigation agents raided the home of Robert Adams on Thursday and seized 548 handguns and 317 rifles from the collector. They also raided his business and took an additional 599 handguns.

KRQE reports that Adams did not violate any laws and was not charged with any crimes. It said the DHS, however, is not finished with Adams and he may be charged with gun smuggling, tax evasion and violating importation laws.

The government spent yeas surveilling the gun collector and argues that his weapons are “not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes.”

KRQE reports the federal government is concerned “that no markings on the guns and missing documents mean the guns are not traceable by law enforcement.”

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. 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.

Government gun-grabbers call this the “Gun Show Loophole” and have declared they will outlaw the practice and close down gun shows around the country.

The DHS is obviously looking to make an example of Mr. Adams as the government prepares to enact and enforce a wide range of new laws aimed at diminishing the Second Amendment. It remains to be seen, however, if the federal government will use this case as part of its ongoing propaganda effort to demonize legal gun ownership.

Related: Decorated Combat Veteran Arrested: Charged With 5 Felonies For Possession of AR Magazines

-

IF ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ ARE BAD, WHY DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WANT TO BUY 7,000 OF THEM FOR ‘PERSONAL DEFENSE’?

By Jason Howerton | The Blaze

Jan. 26, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.

Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban. The bill would ban more than 150 firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds. There is no expiration date on Feinstein’s bill.

Critics of such a ban on semi-automatic rifles are already arguing that the government is showing its hypocrisy by essentially saying they are good “personal defense” for them, but not for American citizens. When civilians own semi-automatic rifles, they somehow become “assault weapons.”

That being said, it is reasonable for the Department of Homeland Security to request these rifles as they are indeed effective personal defense weapons. The agency is tasked with keeping Americans safe from those who wish to do the country harm, and its officials should be equipped with all the tools they need to do so effectively.

But what about Americans who want to keep themselves and their families safe from threats? Is a semi-automatic rifle unacceptable for a civilian’s “personal defense” in his or her home? According to some Democratic lawmakers, like Sen. Feinstein, it appears the answer is yes.

Just last week two students in Rochester, N.Y. scared off a pair of home intruders by simply brandishing an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. One of the students said he believes the weapon saved their lives.

-

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER BEGINS GUN CONTROL PUSH

By Megan R. Wilson | The Hill

01/25/13

The Justice Department is taking the first steps toward carrying out President Obama’s executive actions on gun control.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday released three proposals to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was one of the 23 actions ordered by Obama last week to tackle gun violence.

The proposed regulations would give local law-enforcement agencies access to the gun-sale database that is maintained by the FBI. The rules would also preserve records of denied weapons sales indefinitely.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act already requires federal background checks for gun purchases, but not every firearm sale is covered under the law.

Currently, law enforcement agencies cannot perform a NICS check when transferring, returning or selling weapons that have been confiscated, seized or recovered. The new rules would change that, allowing officials to perform a background check on people who receive those weapons to ensure that they are permitted to own a gun.

Obama ordered the rule change in a Jan. 16 memo that called for “rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”

Holder is also proposing that the NICS hold on to records of denied weapon sales that are more than 10 years old. When the NICS was established, the Justice Department ordered that the records be moved to a storage facility after 10 years, which Holder says is no longer necessary.

“The FBI has therefore determined that for NICS’ own internal business operations, litigation and prosecution purposes, and proper administration of the system, NICS shall retain denied transaction records on site,” Holder wrote in a notice to be published in Monday’s Federal Register. “The retention of denied transaction information … will enhance the efficiency and operational capability of the NICS.”

The proposed rules would also give Native American tribes access to NICS. Currently, only federal, state, or local agencies can perform the checks, which leaves out “domestic dependent nations” recognized by the United States.

The Justice Department isn’t the only part of the administration that has been asked to take action in response to last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn. The president has also ordered the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to get involved.

One of Obama’s directives was to ensure coverage of mental health treatment in Medicaid and under the healthcare reform law. He also ordered increased training of school staff to help them recognize signs of mental illness.

The CDC, meanwhile, was directed to study the causes of gun violence. The president urged Congress to approve $10 million for the agency to examine whether there are links between shooting sprees and violent entertainment.

Comments on the Justice Department proposals are due by March 28.

-

MAYOR PREDICTS “WACO-STYLE STANDOFF” IN RESPONSE TO OBAMA GUN CONFISCATION

“It’s not going to end well”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 17, 2013

Expressing his opposition to the New York SAFE Act, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King has sensationally warned that any federal gun confiscation program could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America.

“Most people are law-abiding citizens and may go ahead and sell those or turn those over, but you’re going to have a fraction of people that are going to take a stand, and I can just predict a Waco-style standoff in some rural area and it’s not going to end well,” Mayor King told Fox 23 News.

During the Waco siege in April 1993, after failing to execute a search warrant against the Branch Davidians, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) burned down the Mount Carmel Center, slaughtering seventy-six men, women and children.

The SAFE Act, which passed the NY Senate late Monday, states that weapons with a detachable magazine and one military style feature purchased before the law was passed must be registered and that any high capacity magazine holding ten rounds or more must be sold out of state within one year.

Back in December, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo admitted that “confiscation could be an option,” when it came to enforcing the new law. However, provisions in the original bill that included confiscation were removed in order to prevent the legislation from being voted down.

Mayor King’s comments echo those of outgoing Congressman Ron Paul, who last week told The Alex Jones Show that the second amendment represents Americans’ “line in the sand,” and that any attempt at federal gun confiscation could lead to revolution.

“I don’t think we’ll do that calmly, I think the American people will highly resent it and resist,” said Paul.

While much of the Obama administration’s gun control agenda is being pursued via legislation and executive orders, a significant portion of it is also being achieved via extortion and blackmail.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has demanded that gun retailers agree to a laundry list of draconian gun control regulations, including the abolition of sales of semi-auto weapons, threatening them with economic sanctions if they do not become front line facilitators for gun control.

-

POLL SHOWS VAST MAJORITY OF GUN OWNERS WOULD DEFY GUN BAN

Written by  Alex Newman | The New American

If the government were to pass an unconstitutional law purporting to ban firearms, two thirds of Americans with guns in their household say they would defy the lawless legislation and refuse to comply, according to a recent poll conducted by Fox News. Even the majority of Democrat and liberal gun owners would refuse to surrender their weapons, the survey revealed. Most Americans also believe that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens — not gun bans — would help reduce crime.

The Fox poll interviewed more than 1,000 registered voters in mid-January on a wide range of issues, most of which were related to firearms and the Second Amendment. According to the results, more than half of all respondents said there was at least one gun in their household — and the numbers have been steadily rising over previous years. Another five percent did not know whether there were guns in their home, or they were not willing to answer the question.

Among the 52 percent of respondents who admitted to having a gun in their household, the overwhelming majority said they would defy any “law” purporting to require the surrender of firearms. An astonishing two thirds said outright that they would defy the unconstitutional pretended act of legislation. Some 13 percent were not sure, and just 22 percent said they would give up their guns or submit.

Breaking down the numbers by political affiliation also provided some interesting insight into the attitudes of Americans. In all, 70 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of self-identified conservatives would refuse to hand over their weapons. More surprisingly, perhaps, were the figures for those on the left: According to the survey, more than half of Democrats and almost 60 percent of self-styled liberals would defy any potential gun ban.

Other interesting results from the survey include the American people’s thoughts on whether tougher infringements on the Second Amendment would help prevent tragedies such as the Newtown school shooting. Less than one fourth of respondents thought more gun control could help stop such violence, while more than 70 percent said people intent on mass murder would always be able to find guns. About five percent thought new laws might help, but that mass murderers would still find ways to wreak havoc.

Breaking down the results by political affiliation provided further evidence that extremist politicians in Washington and some state capitals are way out of touch with mainstream America — not to mention the Constitution they took an oath to uphold. Consider, for example, that just over a third of Democrats thought tougher infringements on the right to keep and bear arms could help stop tragedies such as the massacre at Newtown. Almost 60 percent said they thought mass murderers would always be able to find guns. Less surprising, perhaps, only seven percent of Republicans thought more gun restrictions could help prevent such tragedies.

In a somewhat deceptive question, pollsters asked whether it was more important to protect the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, or to protect citizens from gun violence, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Still, a clear majority of Americans thought protecting the Second Amendment was more important.

In reality, however, studies have repeatedly shown that more guns in private hands correlates with lower levels of crime and violence. For evidence, see Chicago and Washington, D.C., which have among the most draconian restrictions on gun rights and among the highest rates of gun violence and murder. States with widespread gun ownership and few restrictions — places such as Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and other areas — enjoy some of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

Internationally, those trends are similar. In Switzerland, for example, where gun ownership is mandatory for virtually all able-bodied males of military age, crime rates and murders are among the lowest in the world. Places such as Mexico, meanwhile — which enforces a virtual total ban on all civilian gun ownership — have some of the highest murder rates on the planet. Over 60,000 have been murdered there just in the last six years.

Americans seem to realize that. Another question in the Fox survey asked whether there would be less violent crime if guns were banned, or if more law-abiding citizens had guns. About one fourth responded that a gun ban would be more effective, while close to 60 percent said more firearms in the hands of citizens would reduce violent crime more effectively. Some 15 percent said they did not know.

Leaving the issue of crime aside, another recent poll, this one conducted by Rasmussen, showed that despite all of the media propaganda, fully two thirds of Americans understand that the Second Amendment was designed to protect the people from government tyranny. Even 54 percent of Democrats understood that. Just 17 percent of those polled disagreed — apparently oblivious to U.S. history, the writings of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution itself.

Another recent poll by Gallup, conducted in the weeks following the Newtown tragedy, showed that a majority of Americans opposed any ban on so-called “assault weapons” — a meaningless term used by anti-Second Amendment extremists to demonize popular semi-automatic firearms. Less than 45 percent supported such a ban. Even those figures do not tell the full story, however, as most ban supporters would be unlikely to vote for or against a candidate based solely on their position on guns bans, while gun owners tend to be laser-focused on ousting politicians who would seek to trample on their rights.

Still, despite the clear sentiments of the American people, the Obama administration and certain extremist Democrats in Congress appear determined to assault the Second Amendment and eventually gut it completely. Many of them realize it may cost them their jobs, however, and so, when push comes to shove, even Democrats acknowledge that the “assault weapons ban” will be a tough sell for lawmakers.

Meanwhile, just in case, state lawmakers nationwide are currently preparing to protect the unalienable rights of their constituents. Numerous legislatures, for example, are considering legislation that would nullify any further infringements emanating from Washington on the right to keep and bear arms. More than a few of those bills would put federal officials in prison if they attempted to enforce unconstitutional gun statutes within state territory.

Across America, sheriffs and local law enforcement officials are also coming out in droves to support the Second Amendment. In addition to refusing to enforce any new unconstitutional gun control, more than a few chief law enforcement officers have even vowed to actively prevent the enforcement of any more infringements on the rights of citizens in their counties.

Obama and some Democrats are pushing hard for an all-out assault on gun rights. The resistance, however, is growing, and some analysts have even said that the movement for gun control might have crossed “a bridge too far” — predicting that after this battle, now that the gun-grabbers have shown their true intentions, the movement for gun control will be crushed and become totally irrelevant once and for all.

“The enemy’s openly-expressed gratification over the deaths of innocent teachers and children at Sandy Hook has transformed itself into hubris, and hubris has led the enemy across several bridges too far,” noted author William Levinson in a hard-hitting piece for the American Thinker. “It is therefore time to counterattack decisively in what Carl von Clausewitz called the Hauptschlacht: the decisive battle of annihilation that ends forever the enemy’s ability to wage further aggression. We will make 2013 the year in which gun control becomes about as popular as slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and similar practices that have been relegated to the ash heap of history.”

Analysts say gun control-supporting politicians who would infringe on Americans’ God-given right to keep and bear arms will soon be looking for another job. And while Obama may think he can use “executive orders” to implement his radical and unconstitutional agenda, Americans and officials at all levels of government have already made it clear that such lawlessness will not fly.

Even New Yorkers are stepping up to the plate, orchestrating what has been dubbed the largest act of civil disobedience in state history to defy an unconstitutional “law” purporting to require the registration of semi-automatic firearms. If the people of New York are willing to resist the lawless assault on their rights, just imagine the lengths to which Texans and others from liberty-minded states would be willing to go.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

-

OBAMA GOES FOR THE GUNS IN 2013, THERE WILL BE RESISTANCE

-

-

–

-

By issuing 23 executive orders to restrict firearms ownership, Obama has made his contempt for the People, the Congress and the Bill of Rights & Constitution blatantly obvious.

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 16, 2013

Barack Obama’s bold use of executive orders to ‘take action without Congress’ amounts to an outrageous unconstitutional overreach of powers, and is impeachable action on its face. And Obama isn’t even done; he has vowed to push Congress on a new assault weapons ban along with other legislative restrictions on the guaranteed Second Amendment, which “shall not be infringed.”

But worse, the 23 executive orders issued by Obama make clear that the vast medical bureaucracy centralized under ObamaCare will be used to profile and harass Americans in order to disqualify them for gun ownership based on “mental health” history.

At least 7 of the 23 executive orders relate to mental health reporting that includes “clarifying” the role of doctors and health care providers in “asking their patients about guns in the home,” reporting “threats of violence” to authorities, and screening for “mental health” will create the backbone for a “no buy” list that disbars Constitutional rights from flagged individuals without due process. At least 8 executive orders relate to new rules on background checks and weapons sales & ownership restrictions.

The numbers on the list relate to the summaries of the executive orders reported earlier today by the Washington Times. The titles used are shorthand language by this author, with a fuller reference in the cited article.

MENTAL HEALTH / MEDICAL SPIES (7)
These executive orders effectively “deputize doctors” to spy on patients, while priming and populating a database to take firearms rights under the pretense of “mental health” issues. This type of legislation has already been pursued by the likes of Sen. Chuck Schumer and others.

Order #2 Address legal restrictions related to states sharing data under Health Insurance Portability Act Contributes towards centralized health care database that will be used to authorize gun purchases.

Order #14 Directs the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “research causes and prevention of gun violence.” Undoubtedly, the report will flag PTSD and other related “mental health” symptoms that will negate gun ownership. Undoubtedly, it will not properly address the role of SSRI and other psychotropic prescription medications that an overwhelming number of mass shooters have reportedly been on.

Order #16 Under Obamacare, doctors can ask patients about “guns in their homes,” and are clearly encouraged to flag gun owners that may show so-called signs of “mental illness.” Under the newly revised DSM-5 manual that psychiatrists use for diagnosis, a wide-array of behavior is categorized as mental illness. While it may be desirable that unhealthy people find treatment, it is clear that such sweeping labels will serve to prevent otherwise law-abiding citizens from purchasing guns.

Order #17 Orders a letter to health care providers reminding them to “report threats of violence” to law enforcement. Clearly, this would also be a database flag used to disqualify potential buyers. The order leaves room for this policy to be abused.

Order #20 Clarify mental health coverage under Medicaid Emphasizes mental health as an issue of focus.

Order #21 Clarify “health benefits and parity requirements” under Obamacare Once again, ObamaCare is tied to collectivist society and effort to control guns.

Order #22 “Mental-health parity regulations” Mental health is clearly emerging as a watch word for reigning in firearms ownership rights. While truly unstable individuals should be helped, the opportunity for abuse is clearly widespread and troublesome. A nation of sheep have been encouraged to ask their doctors for pills if they feel unhappy or depressed. Will a history of SSRI medication be used to take away an individuals right to bear arms, for instance?

Gun Owners of America sounded the alarm back in June 2012 that ObamaCare would be used to flag would-be buyers and disqualify individuals from purchasing weapons:

“Centralizing these medical records will allow the FBI to troll a list of Americans for ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to deny them their gun rights, in the same way that the Veterans Administration has already denied more than 150,000 veterans their right to bear arms.”

A summary review of these executive orders makes clear that this kind of profiling and issuing of “no buy” lists is indeed a major concern that undermines Second Amendment rights. Good intentions to promote “mental health” are distorted and used to “out” supposedly unqualified individuals who will have no due process, no trial and no chance to even make a case concerning their rights.

While ObamaCare and other health care practices will increasingly flag patients and enter them into a database, the Obama cabinet will be engaged in selling the American public, taking away the rights of individuals on the basis of “mental health.”

BRAINWASHING AMERICANS ON MENTAL HEALTH & GUN OWNERSHIP (2)

Order #7 Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign During the Clinton Administration, now Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to “brainwash” people on guns, attempting to change the perception of gun ownership the way that attitudes towards cigarette smoking was changed. Clearly, the president’s new campaign would continue this effort, demonizing and undermining the clear constitutional and self-defense rationale for bearing arms.

Order #23 ‘National dialogue’ on “mental health” w/ HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius & Ed. Sec. Arne Duncan Meanwhile, the heads of two of the most dangerous and distorted agencies will tour the nation to lecture on reforming the nations’ “mental health” practices. Again, this has all been issued in the context of gun control. The Obama Administration is wantonly infringing upon the Second Amendment again by trying to distort the lines of jurisdiction and give the Dept. of Health and Human Services (administering ObamaCare) and the Dept. of Education authority on labeling or dealing with people deemed unfit for ownership.

“NO BUY” LIST / “SEIZED GUNS” / PRIVATE SALES: ATF, FBI, LAW ENFORCEMENT (8)
The data amassed through the health care system will be matched with the criminal background checks that are already in place. Felons are already barred from purchasing firearms. Now, law enforcement is instructed to run additional background checks before “returning seized guns” while federally licensed firearms dealers are saddled with additional ATF regulations, and will, apparently be facilitating background checks for “private sales,” which are targeted for further restrictions under this initial executive action.

Again, the stage is clearly set for background check authorization denial on the basis of “mental health” flags, on top of already instituted criminal history flags.

Order #1 Strengthens data sharing under federal background check system Further centralized integration of data.

Order #3 Provides incentives for states to provide background check In addition to infringement on the Second Amendment, much of this executive action furthers the trend of federal overreach, guarded in theory by the Tenth Amendment. This order calls for “incentives” (i.e. federal dollars) for cooperation by states which have a constitutional right to non-compliance with federal policies.

Order #4 Attorney General to “review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun” Again, we see the formation of a “no buy” list similar to terrorism watch lists and “no fly” lists maintained by Homeland Security where due process is non-existent and individuals are flagged and disbarred based on suspicion or ‘signs’ of mental illness or related behavior. The potential for abuse and lack of legal recourse is clear.

Order #5 Law enforcement shall “run full background check” before “returning seized guns” The question here is what is a “seized gun” and under what circumstances is it seized? Will unregistered firearms, otherwise legally owned by a law abiding individual, be seized? This policy potentially violates legal gun owners stopped in traffic, at checkpoints, at registration (as proposed under Feinstein’s bill) or even at home visits. While background checks can be done almost instantaneously, a “full” background check could disarm legal owners for days or weeks until individuals are cleared and, essentially permitted, to resume ownership.

Order #6 ATF to send letter to gun dealers on “how to run background checks for private sales” This is a big area. We have already witnessed the ATF attempting to halt legal private gun sales in the state of Texas. Now, as a half-measure to banning private sales outright, prospective buyers will be forced to go register and pass background checks at dealer locations, effectively outlawing purely private sales. Meanwhile, licensed firearms dealers, already burdened with paperwork and red tape, will apparently be forced to facilitate private sale transactions, after receiving ATF policy mandates on ‘how to run background checks.’

Order #9 Require federal law enforcement “trace guns recovered in criminal investigations” This executive order reeks of the hypocrisy exercised by the Obama Administration during Operation Fast & Furious, which has now thoroughly unfolded into a scandal that has found Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for lying about what he knew and when, while casting doubt on the honest intentions of the ATF and Department of Justice. The Obama Administration admittedly “walked” thousands of semi-automatic weapons (now conveniently targeted by gun banners) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that they could subsequently be “traced” and blamed for crimes.

Order #10 Dept. of Justice to analyze “lost and stolen guns” data, make available Further centralizing data to trace guns, this order has the potential for abuse by criminalizing otherwise law-abiding owners who’ve not cooperated in registration efforts and may possess “lost or stolen guns” through legal means.

Order #11 New BATFE director appointed This relates to a purging of officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who were either indicated in the Fast and Furious scandal, or who may hold further information on other officials involved, particularly those higher up in the chain. Whistleblowers at the ATF helped uncover some of the details about Fast and Furious that were ultimately linked to Obama cabinet officials.

SAFETY DRILLS to push crisis culture, paranoia training and federal money/jurisdiction (6)
Finally, in fitting with the federalization of background checks, data sharing, and a mandate over gun safety and “mental health”, the executive branch is sticking its hands into safety protocol at schools, churches, public centers and more.

It further hypes of the paranoia of terrorism and lone wolf domestic extremists identified by Homeland Security and other departments to institute mandatory training drills, crisis scenarios and the like that have the potential for abuse by wasting tax payer dollars on statistically unlikely scenarios while federalizing the chain of command and jurisdiction for police and other first responders.

Order #8 Review safety standards gun locks / gun safes

Order #12 First responders, schools active shooter training Homeland Security and FEMA have already been conducting training and drills based on mall shooters, returning veterans gone wild, homeland terrorist and other related scenarios. The Infowars crew covered one such drill that took place in Denver, not far from the Aurora Batman massacre, that was dubbed “Operation Mountain Guardian” and run by a federal chain of command headed by Homeland Security. Now, organizations like CrisisActors.org are institutionalizing this training by hiring FEMA-certified actors who play various roles in these terror and shooter scenarios. Obama’s executive order expands and further mandates this practice for incidents which are statistically very rare, but widely hyped in the media as imminent. While certain aspects of this kind of training may be prudent, in many respects it conditions the public and first responder force to accept greater government control as an automatic response to any mass casualty incident, when the jurisdiction would normally fall on local or state authorities.

Order #13 Efforts to “prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime” Obama voted for laws to ‘throw the book’ at illegal gun owners who defended their homes from invaders in the state of Illinois, the home of the murder capital of the world, Chicago. Private gun sales and unregistered firearms will clearly be prosecuted, while Castle laws and ‘Stand Your Ground’ legislation will be undermined or challenged (recall the Trayvon Martin case).

Order #15 Attorney General report on ‘gun-safety technologies’ Again, the same Attorney General who wanted to brainwash Americans on guns and who was complicit in the Fast & Furious scandal wants to implement new technologies and promote gun safety. Where is Holder’s credibility to do so?

Order #18 Incentives to schools to “hire school-resource officers” Federalized money will be thrown around for politically-correct “school-resource officers” who will likely provide counseling and monitor student behavior.

Order #19 Model emergency response plans for schools / worship / college campuses The Sikh temple shooting, the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre and the Batman movie premiere massacre have all brought the fear of violence to our private lives, and invited in the federal government to mediate those spheres.

Once again, it is generally abusive for a president to rule by executive fiat, and the authority to do so demands questions. It is all the more unconstitutional for a president to take on a constitutionally-guaranteed right and attempt to reign it in through countless regulations, all without formally consulting Congress.

While further gun control legislation has been recommended by the Obama Administration, and will be pushed via the kind of bills being introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Schumer, the people should demand that the overreach of executive power be checked by calls for impeachment, as Infowars.com recommended yesterday and in past occasions.

-

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: ‘I GUARANTEE YOU, BARACK OBAMA AIN’T TAKING MY SHOTGUNS…IF HE TRIES TO FOOL WITH MY BARETTA HE’S GOT A PROBLEM…’

-

JOE BIDEN ADMITS GUN CONTROL WILL NOT STOP MASS SHOOTINGS OR SAVE LIVES

“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 a thousand a year from what it is now.”

-

-

FLASHBACK: OBAMA: “I WILL NOT TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY”

By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. | CNS News
December 28, 2013

At a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama said that he will not take Americans’ guns away.

“When you all go home and you’re talking to your buddies and you say, ah ‘He wants to take my gun away.’  You’ve heard it here,  I’m on television so everybody knows it.  I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

Since that statement, it has become clear that Obama simply and with devious charisma, lies to the American public in order to achieve his agendas.

-

–

WHITE HOUSE RELEASES PHOTO OF OBAMA SHOOTING A GUN

By DANIEL HALPER | The Weekly Standard
February 2, 2013

-

“President Barack Obama shoots clay targets on the range at Camp David, Md., Saturday, Aug. 4, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza),” the caption reads.

“This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”

-

BARACK OBAMA: ‘I GO SHOOTING ALL THE TIME’

By Jon Swaine, Washington | telegraph.co.uk

Amid conservative anger over Mr Obama’s proposals to ban assault weapons as part of a drastic overhaul of US gun control laws, the president said that he was a keen clay-pigeon shooter.

Asked in a magazine interview whether he had ever fired a gun, Mr Obama said he did so with guests at the president’s rural retreat.

“Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” he said. “And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations.

“And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake”.

Mr Obama’s plans for tighter firearms regulations were drawn up by Joe Biden, his vice-president, following the massacre of 26 people, including 20 young pupils at a primary school in Connecticut last month.

Mr Biden – whose proposals also include a background check system on all Americans trying to buy guns and a 10-shot limit for ammunition clips – has been quick to note that he owns a shotgun.

The president, however, rarely speaks personally about firearms, and is dismissed by many enthusiasts as an elite urban law professor who does not appreciate America’s heritage of gun ownership.

He accepted in his interview that gun culture in rural areas was “very different” to that in urban areas, such as his home town of Chicago, where it is more frequently linked to serious crime.

“If you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were 10, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that,” Mr Obama told The New Republic.

He made clear, however, that his daughters Sasha, 11, and Malia, 14, did not join the clay-pigeon shooting parties at Camp David, in rural Maryland.

A week before the Super Bowl, the most keenly-awaited event in the US sporting calendar, the president risked further angering the heartland by expressing concern about the safety of American football.

Several high-profile professional players have in recent years developed brain damage, which has been linked to the frequent heavy impacts on their skulls caused by the sport.

“I’m a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football,” said Mr Obama.

-

-

RAND PAUL VS KING OBAMA I

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave an interview to the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he rather strongly denounced President Obama’s threats to impose gun control through executive orders.  ”I’m against having a king,” said the Senator.  ”I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that’s someone who wants to act like a king or monarch.”

To be more specific, the notion of suffering rule without representation was a big sticking point with the authors of the Declaration of Independence.  Speaking of kings and monarchs is a valid shorthand way of expressing the notion that unitary government is the problem… even if the absolute ruler has to stand for election every four years, and even when he’s limited to two terms in office.

Bypassing Congress is an aggressive method of ruling without representation.  It’s supposed to be difficult to force sweeping national agendas upon a free people.  The modern appetite for swift, “efficient,” all-powerful centralized government is a denial of that principle.  It’s tough to find issues where Rand Paul agrees with, say, Harry Reid, isn’t it?  Good.  That difficulty defines the boundaries of what the federal government is supposed to be doing.  Battles over the extension of those boundaries should be nice and vicious.  The American people deserve no less.

What makes a “king?”  It’s not the means by which he takes the throne, or the length of time he remains there.  The threat of punishment at the ballot box in four years is not a sufficient check on executive power, especially for a President who will never again face the voters.

What is “taxation without representation?”  Ask your grandchildren, when they are taxed through the nose to pay off deranged spending commitments they weren’t alive to oppose.

I see nothing wrong with invoking the language of the American Revolution, when it is so clearly still in progress.

-

RAND PAUL SLAMS KING OBAMA OVER EXECUTIVE ORDER THREAT

Kentucky Senator says President is “usurping the constitution”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 14, 2013

As Barack Obama signaled that he would use executive orders to help carry out his gun control agenda, Senator Rand Paul slammed the president for acting like a “king,” usurping the Constitution, and running roughshod over Congress.

-

-

Speaking with CBN News, Paul remarked, “I’m against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress — that’s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.”

Adding that he had consistently opposed executive orders even under Republican administrations, the Kentucky Senator vowed to “fight tooth and nail” to derail Obama’s gun grab.

“And I promise you, there’ll be no rock left unturned as far as trying to stop him from usurping the Constitution, running roughshod over Congress,” asserted Paul. “And you will see one heck of a debate if he decides to try to do this.”

The Kentucky Senator’s promise arrives on the back of a guarantee from Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky that he will refuse to enforce a federal gun confiscation program should it be ordered.

“I am responsible for the people inside this county… I couldn’t justify, if Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.” Peyman stated.

After Vice President Joe Biden indicated during a meeting last week that Obama would use executive powers to target the second amendment, the President himself confirmed that such a course is set to be taken when he told journalists today, “I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president,” adding that he would take “executive action.”

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer is also pressuring retailers to offset the need for legislative action by removing certain types of guns from shelves immediately. Yesterday, Schumer called on gun retailers to “Suspend sales of modern assault-style weapons until Congress is able to fully consider and vote on legislation to curb gun violence.”

Meanwhile, in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is pushing a bill that could lead to gun owners being declared a “threat” via a new mental health classification that would empower authorities to place them under “civil confinement”.

The Obama administration’s new crusade against gun rights has prompted huge firearms sales across the country, with one gun show in Daly City this weekend being attended by over 10,000 people, most of whom when asked said they were buying guns in anticipation of semi-assault rifles being banned.

-

GOP CONGRESSMAN THREATENS IMPEACHMENT IF OBAMA USES EXECUTIVE ACTION FOR GUN CONTROL

By Caroline May | Political Reporter

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.

At his press conference Monday, Obama floated the possibility of using executive action to enact policies aimed at reducing gun violence.

The freshman congressman, who served one term in Congress in the mid-1990s, further labeled the possibility “an existential threat to this nation” because, he said, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from tyranny.

“Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he added. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”

He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans.”

“If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.

-

TEXAS CONGRESSMAN THREATENS OBAMA WITH IMPEACHMENT IF HE USES EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON GUNS

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
January 15, 2013

A Texas Congressman is threatening president Obama with impeachment if his administration exercises executive action to scale back the Second Amendment.

In a press release titled, “Obama’s gun grab an unconstitutional threat to the nation,” republican Rep. Steve Stockman stated, “The White House’s recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic.”

Rep. Stockman said that he will pursue “any means necessary” to thwart Obama’s use of executive orders targeting the Second Amendment “including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”

“Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person – much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court,” Rep. Stockman stated.

The Congressman said that the president’s actions would represent “not just an attack on the Constitution” but “a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger.”

“If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”

Congressman Stockman’s strong defense of the Second Amendment comes at a crucial time in the gun control debate. Anti-gun proponents have been envigored by the recent tragic events in Newtown, CT and are seeking to capitalize on the nation’s emotional vulnerability during this opportune moment to pass sweeping gun reform.

However, there are some law enforcers at local levels that say they will not enforce any unconstitutional mandates declared by the federal government. Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky during a town hall speech this past Saturday, told attendees that he had no intention of taking anybody’s guns away. “I am responsible for the people inside this county,” stated Peyman, adding, “I couldn’t justify, if Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.”

“I consider this a moral obligation… My office will not comply with any federal actions which violate the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore to uphold,” Peyman declared.

Earlier this year, Rep. Stockman, along with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), introduced H.R. 35 IH, or “The Safe Schools Act of 2013,” a bill that would have eliminated “Gun Free Zones” around schools. The bill labeled the “Gun Free Zones Act” a “deadly failure,” and one section goes so far as to say “the reason that the `Gun Free School Zones Act’ has made American schools unsafe is that shooters now know that they can victimize American school campuses with no fear that victims will be armed.”

-

CONGRESSMAN PUSHING OBAMA IMPEACHMENT LIKENS PRESIDENT TO SADDAM HUSSEIN

Jeff Poor
Daily Caller
Jan 16, 2013

-

-

On Tuesday’s “On the Record” on the Fox News Channel, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman, who recently suggested President Barack Obama should be impeached if he uses executive orders to infringe on gun rights, compared the president to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

President Obama will announce his plan to address gun violence on Wednesday, flanked by children from around the country.

“He is even using children,” Stockman said. “It reminds me of Saddam Hussein when you use kids.”

Republicans are tired of being pushed around by the White House, Stockman added, noting that legislators have considered a variety of ways to resist executive overreach.

-

OBAMA’S ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS MAY RESULT IN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 15, 2013

If Congress will not attack the Second Amendment right of Americans, Obama has promised to do it through unconstitutional executive orders and actions, according to the New York Times.

-

-

“My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” Obama said during a press conference on Monday. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as President, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it.”

Obama’s game plan designed to chip away at the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was aided by the Soros and Rockefeller supported and funded Center for American Progress (CAP). The establishment Democrat think tank presented its recommendations on Monday, including both legislative proposals and executive orders.

“The Center for American Progress is recommending 13 new gun policies to the White House — some of them executive actions that would not require the approval of Congress — in what amounts to the progressive community’s wish list,” the Washington Post reported last week.

Obama and the Democrats at CAP know any executive action or order by Obama would be a direct violation of Article I Section I of the Constitution stating that all legislative powers reside with Congress.

If Congress allows Obama to issue executive orders they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Despite this, Congress will undoubtedly allow any attack on the Constitution issued by executive order to stand as it has done in the past.

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas has declared that he will protect the Constitution and file articles of impeachment against Obama if he attacks the Second Amendment with an executive order.

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement on Monday after Democrats revealed their strategy to dismantle the Second Amendment.

“The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” the statement reads. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years.  The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.”

Obama’s executive orders present “an existential threat to this nation” because the purpose of the Second Amendment is to empower the people to resist a tyrannical government, as Walter Williams explains (see video below).

Article I gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Conviction and removal from office requires a two-thirds vote.

If Obama indeed attempts to undermine the Second Amendment through executive actions or orders, impeachment proceedings must begin immediately.

“The President’s actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger.  If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” Rep. Stockman’s statement explains.

-

CITIZENS FILE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST OBAMA

For sedition against the Constitution

Alex Jones
Infowars.com
January 15, 2013

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

There can no longer be any doubt – the forces of tyranny are running wild across our once great Republic. The time has come for all good men and women to rally to the aid of their country. We have now entered a historic crossroads that will decide the destiny of the United States. Arrogance and corruption has long festered in Washington DC, but the last decade has seen an extreme acceleration of criminal looting and attacks on liberty – every freedom is under sustained assault.

We the People, the rightful masters of this Republic, will either rise up through Congress and the states or we can trade in our birthright of liberty for the chains of a technocratic slavery. Below we list some of the more egregious acts of seditious treason against the Republic of the United States. Anyone who wishes to continue to live in a free country and to pass that birthright on to their children must research this document and then lobby state legislatures and the Congress to do their duty and remove the would-be dictator.

The time has now come for a bill of impeachment to be introduced and debated in Congress. Obama’s crimes are public, and the debate in the House will serve as a court in which to display the tyrannical activities of President Obama and his cohorts. As in the case of Richard Nixon, the exposure of Obama’s crimes may cause him to resign in disgrace. If he does not step down, the full House will then vote to begin the impeachment trial in the US Senate. The time has now come to make your decision – to stand up to evil or get on your knees as a willing slave.

Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Hussein Obama – Filed by Citizen Alexander Emric Jones, January 15, 2013.

- He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive orders to curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment.

Below, Congressman Stockman has pledged to move for impeachment against Obama. I am standing up against Obama right beside him, will you?

“The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” reads a statement by Rep. Steve Stockman. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.”

- He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.

- He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal government.

- He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.

- He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.

- He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.

- He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included in the final NDAA bill.

- He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution in exceeding congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed outpreferential waivers to corporations friendly to his administration.

- He has declared war on America’s coal industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition, ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.

- He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.

- He has violated Article II of the Constitution by using signing statements as part of his executive usurpation of power.

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”

Rep. Steve Stockman, Texas.

For these, and other offenses which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, including perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming and refusal to obey a lawful order, we call for the immediate impeachment of Barack H. Obama.

-

RELATED POST: CITIZENS DEMAND INVESTIGATION INTO OBAMA ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT AND SECOND TERM RUN; CONGRESSMAN WALTER B. JONES (NC-3) INTRODUCES H. CON. RES. 107 TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

–

-

MARK LEVIN: “WE HAVE AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENT”

-

-

MARK LEVIN: I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution. Yes, he keeps telling us he won reelection. Congratulations, but guess what? The Constitution wasn’t up for election, it’s not up for a referendum. He has to comply with it, too.

He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. When he gets up there and starts saying, if Congress doesn’t do this, I’m going to do this unilaterally, it violates separation of power a lot of the times. And this is a man pushing the edge of the envelope as far as I’m concerned, whether it’s the appointment clause, whether it’s his unilateral action on immigration, whether it’s trashing the commerce clause and the tax clauses under Obamacare. Now they’re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They’ve issued regulations on First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the Fourteenth Amendment.

What the hell is this? He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president, he sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country.

He said we’ve had a discussion about the debt. When did we have a discussion about the debt? We’ve had a debate about taxes. The man’s never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me to be furious when I watch and listen to him. (FOX News Channel’s America Live with Megyn Kelly, January 14, 2013)

–

TOP 10 EVENTS THAT PROVE OBAMA PLANNED GUN CONTROL LONG BEFORE NEWTOWN TRAGEDY

Numerous Events Throughout President Obama’s First Term Have Been Patently Exploited to Destroy the Second Amendment “Under the Radar”

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
December 31, 2012

It should be painfully obvious that the gun grabbers — including the likes of President Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Vice President Joe Biden, among many others — are not responding to the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting alone, but are using that terrible tragedy to implement a gun control agenda they have long ago planned, waiting for the right timing to achieve their aims.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first Chief of Staff, famously said “You never want to a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that, is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

It is a simplification of the problem-reaction-solution formula for control that was formally expressed in the Hegelian Dialectic well over a century ago. It has not only been the unofficial motto of the Obama Administration, but of all the tyrants operating from the Oval Office and around the world for some time. It has been clear for sometime that the Obama Administration planned all along to achieve significant gun control, but planned to do so “under the radar” and in his second, (nearly) unaccountable term, where the President does not face re-election or the worry of alienating voters, when he can essentially act as a dictator without even the need for congressional approval.

PREAMBLE: THE CASES WHERE GUNS SAVED LIVES THAT YOU NEVER HEARD ABOUT IN THE MEDIA OR FROM THE PRESIDENT

But just as telling as Obama & Co.’s significant actions to undermine the Second Amendment by exploiting tragedy are the are the countless incidents where guns were used to stop crimes altogether, or to stop mass shootings before they got worse, but were never driven into the national spotlight. Generally speaking, these incidents were NOT exploited in the corporate news media despite the fact that they were both dramatic and newsworthy.

Just a handful that come to mind include the 65-year-old woman who stopped 5 armed robbers in a jewelry store, the 22-year-old concealed carry permit holder who pulled his weapon on a mall shooter earlier this month without shooting, stopping the killer’s murder rampage and causing him to commit suicide, the 71-year-old concealed carry holder who fired on two armed robbers at an online gaming cafe in Florida and sent them quickly fleeing the scene for their lives.

In countless cases across the country, home invaders are shot or stopped by gun owners, including numerous children who’ve used “assault rifles” to stop criminals in their tracks. Robberies at small businesses are routinely stopped by armed employees, owners or even customers, but the cases rarely make big news.

A CATO Institute study released earlier this year found that “tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns,” with this number just based on a round up of local news reports of incidents. A multitude of other crimes are likely deterred each year just by display or declaration of arms by potential or would-be victims and/or bystanders, though most of these incidents are never officially reported

The NRA has estimated that firearms are implemented for protection at least two million times a year, stating that “the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.” Gun Owners of America estimate that number at 2.5 million times per year, while the generally anti-gun Clinton Justice Department, who presided over the first Assault Weapons Ban, admitted that at least 1.5 million crimes are stopped per year due to armed citizens.

Without argument, guns are controversial tools which have deadly potential when used by humans with that intent. However, self-defense, protection of property and staving off tyrannical government is the very point of bearing arms, guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. But those who wish to control populations by restricting access to guns (and finalizing a change in the balance of power between illegitimate government and its people) would have you believe that banning firearms will prevent crime and banish evil. Unfortunately, history shows that this is beyond dangerously naive, while academics in the study of Democide have made clear that despotic governments– in the arena with helpless, disarmed populations– are the greatest cause of unnatural death, killing more than 260 million people in the 20th Century alone.

————

Here’s a round-up of the Top Ten covert actions taken by the Obama Administration to pursue its gun control agenda during his first term in office, in approximate chronological order to demonstrate a timeline, all building up to the crescendo we are now witnessing:

1. Rahm Emanuel tells Attorney General Eric Holder to STFU on gun control in January 2009, at the start of Obama’s first term.

Very early on in Obama’s first term, Attorney General Eric Holder publicly announced that the administration would pursue a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton Administration, but which expired in 2004. ABC News’ Jake Tapper reported that in February 2009, then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel became furious at Holder’s public statements, which had riled up the pro-gun lobby. For example, Sen. Max Baucus issued a press release in response, entitled: ‘Senators to Attorney General: Stay Away from Our Guns.’ According to Tapper:

“Emanuel was furious. He slammed his desk and cursed the attorney general. Holder was only repeating a position Obama had expressed during the campaign, but that was before the White House needed the backing of pro-gun Democrats from red states for their domestic agenda. The chief of staff sent word to Justice that Holder needed to ‘shut the fuck up’ on guns…”

Clearly, the plan was to remain ‘under the radar’ on gun legislation.

2. Covert Fast and Furious Program Begins to Demonize Assault Weapons, Second Amendment

Revelations about Fast and Furious have become part of an ongoing saga all of its own, but it is abundantly clear that the ATF, the Department of Justice and other agencies willingly “walked” thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels early on in the Obama Administration in order to later blame the horrendous effects of the illegal flow of weapons south of the border, and build support for gun restrictions.

Investigations in the House have made clear that Attorney General Eric Holder has been less than forthcoming about what and when he knew about the program. During testimony on May 3, 2011, Holder told the Judiciary Committee he had “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” CBS News, among others, have produced documents proving Holder was briefed as early as July 2010. Rep. Issa threatened to find Holder in contempt, though no meaningful action has yet taken place.

-

-

3. New ATF regulations demand southern border states succumb to greater reporting requirements; purchases of more than two semi-auto weapons more heavily regulated

On January 6, 2011, Reuters reported that the White House was lamenting over delays in new regulations for border states (curiously two days before the tragic Tuscon shooting). Reuters wrote: “A planned Obama administration clampdown on Mexico border gun dealers which would require them to report multiple assault rifle sales has been delayed by the White House amid stiff opposition from the powerful gun lobby.”

By July of 2011, those new restrictions went into place via policies and regulations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). At least one gun store in Albuquerque tried to challenge the new federal requirement that more than 8,000 dealers in Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico must report on the sale of multiple semi-automatic weapons.

Undoubtedly, the pretext was based upon the government-staged Fast and Furious flow of weapons southbound, but aided by the hysteria over the mass shootings in Tuscon, located in one of the affected border states.

4. Exploiting the Tragic Shooting by Jared Lee Loughner and Attempted Assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

The tragic January 8, 2011 shooting in Tuscon, Arizona undoubtedly shocked the nation. Jared Lee Loughner was accused of shooting nineteen people including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, while killing six. While many questions were raised about the alleged killer Loughner, a possible second shooter (or handler) and other unusual aspects of the case, the media and the White House undoubtedly exploited the case immediately to support, if not outright push for, gun control legislation. The day after the shooting, USA Today published an article entitled, ‘Debate on gun control heats up after Giffords shooting’ stating in part: “Gun laws have to be examined,” Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. He said that “doesn’t mean denying guns” but reviewing how they become accessible.

The likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the rhetoric of the ‘radical’ right-wing, while the political establishment overtly called for ‘bipartisanship’ and moves to tone down heated political speech. The post-shooting rhetoric became so shrill that many pundits demonized the mere act of questioning government in the spirit of pulling together in the wake of tragedy, somehow placing collective blame on the entire country for the horrendous actions of one individual.

Gun control advocates demanded that Obama use the tragedy to push for new firearms legislation, but the calculating Obama Administration knew it was not the right time for overt moves. President Obama did use a memorial service as a stump speech for re-election and a handy bounce in the polls, but resisted the urge to advocate changes on the 2nd Amendment.

5. Obama Tells the Brady Center He’ll Attack 2nd Amendment “Under the Radar”

During a March 30, 2011 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady of the Brady Center and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, President Obama reportedly told the Brady’s “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

This was interpreted at the time to reflect the use of Fast and Furious to steer the gun control debate, but clearly encompasses the coordinated, deliberate exploitation of numerous shooting tragedies, as we have all seen.

6. ATF Tried To Ban Importation of Most Shotguns

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms attempted to ban the importation of all shotguns that didn’t meet a “sporting purpose.” In doing so, it attempted to block shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds.

According to the Greeley Gazette:

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.

However, the NRA reported in November of 2011 that this attempt had been blocked in Congress via an appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2012. The bill prevents the federal government from using any funds to ‘prohibit the importation of shotguns with one or more features disliked by the Agency, such as adjustable stocks, extended magazine tubes, etc.’ as well as from many other actions.

However, Ammoland and other Second Amendment advocates point out that the attempt to block the importation of certain shotguns only solidifies the already clear anti-gun agenda of the Obama Administration.

7. Attacking Self-Defense Laws Via the Trayvon Martin Shooting

The February 26, 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin sparked a huge controversy over the rights of self defense.

While the intentions of Trayvon Martin and the judgement of George Zimmerman may never be fully clear, and the unjustified death of anyone is always a tragedy, the media carried out a deliberate misinformation campaign from the beginning to inflame public debate, agitate lines of racial division and stir the pot for gun control.

The primary image of Trayvon Martin shown on television in the wake of the shooting was of a younger Trayvon, heightening the perception of a predatory and targeted killing. Meanwhile, phony racial groups on all sides ramped up the divisive debate over the case– with the new Black Panther party demanding blood on the streets in recorded statements, and false reports of supposed neo-Nazi groups taking to the streets of Florida.

But more than that, the case sparked fresh debate over gun control, with major outlets like the Christian Science Monitor asking if it was “a turning point in gun rights debate?” while observing that “so far, Trayvon’s death is having the biggest impact on the national gun policy debate.”

The debate technically centered around Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, but clearly always had national dimensions.

President Obama shamelessly exploited the Trayvon Martin shooting, famously stating that ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon’, further drawing the identity politics of race into the situation, while one member of Congress wore a hoodie on the floor to decry the shooting.

-

-

Obama added in his speech after the Trayvon shooting that, “All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen.”

Did he mean to indicate gun control in that statement?

8. Exploitation of the Batman shooting massacre

While the other cited events exhibit the Obama Administration’s ramped up approach to gun control, the response to the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado during the premiere of the Batman film ‘The Dark Knight Rises,’ clearly marked the dawn of Obama’s all out rush for playing public sympathy to achieve his ambitious and unconstitutional agenda.

The shooting itself remains mired in troubling unanswered questions, including reports of a second shooting suspect, reports that the theater exit door was opened to let a shooter in, revelations about accused shooter James Holmes’ ties and involvement in mind control research programs, his bizarre behavior while in jail, his unlikely arsenal and much more.

But as troubling as the shooting that killed 12 and injured 58 others in Aurora is, the response by the establishment to demand — in a coordinated fashion — that Obama enact gun control as a response to the actions of a supposed lone wolf is more frightening.

TIME magazine slammed Obama for ‘missing an opportunity’ by not using the Batman massacre to push for gun control while New York mayor Michael Bloomberg demanded action from the presidential candidates on firearms:

“I mean, there’s so many murders with guns every day,” Bloomberg continued. “It’s just gotta stop. And instead of these two people, President [Barack] Obama and Governor [Mitt] Romney talking in broad things about, they want to make the world a better place. OK, tell us how. And this is a problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them, concretely, not just in generalities, specifically, what are they going to do about guns?”

Meanwhile, many in the media, including NBC’s David Gregory (now calling for gun control in the wake of Newtown), recycled blame on the ‘angry’ political discourse in the country.

The media undoubtedly greased the skids for new gun control in the wake of the horrific Batman massacre, giving President Obama the opportunity to refuse action again — as Caesar refused the crown of emperor three times in Shakespeare’s play — before repeated injury gave him no other choice but to take action.

9. Obama unabashedly admits his intention to reintroduce assault weapons ban during debate with Mitt Romney

President Obama had already been outed as an anti-gun president, after all, he had already been cynically dubbed ‘gun salesman of the year’ after sparking waves of record firearm sales based on fears that he would restrict the Second Amendment during his second term.

But his performance during the second televised debate with Mitt Romney left no doubt.

Obama openly declared his intention to reinstate an assault weapons ban during his second term, while further blaming handgun violence in Chicago.

-

-

President Obama then reiterated his support for that renewed assault weapons ban following the tragic Connecticut school shooting, knowing the dazed public would have little memory of his calls for the ban on the campaign trail.

Meanwhile, Senator Dianne Feinstein was meeting privately with the ATF prior to the election to discuss the possibilities for new gun control legislation.

To enact it, these gun grabbers needed only await the perfect crisis – at the right time to exploit it and gain ground for their unconstitutional policies.

10. Bob Costas Called for Gun Control After NFL Player’s Murder-Suicide

Our memory as a society is so short under the current frenzy surrounding the tragic Newtown, Connecticut shootings that many have already forgotten about NBC sports reporter Bob Costas’ very public cries for gun control, though they were very loud.

-

-

After quoting from sportswriter Jason Whitlock, Bob Costas went on in the days to follow stating that ‘young men can’t own guns without something bad happening.’

Obviously this list is not comprehensive. There have been many other significant actions to restrict the Second Amendment by stealth, including Sen. Schumer’s attempt to legislatively prevent veterans (and others) diagnosed with PTSD or other mental illnesses from owning guns. (New definitions of mental disorders are quite sweeping, and threaten to cast a wide net that will indeed infringe upon rights meant to be guaranteed.)

There is also the significant moves towards supporting the United Nation’s controversial Small Arms Treaty that many fear will be used to restrict the Second Amendment, particularly in the areas of import & export. Though negotiations last summer failed, the treaty will be revived for negotiations and is anything but dead.

But the point is sufficiently made — government could not respond to tragedy so quickly with legislative “solutions” if they weren’t already preparing them. And no president could garner support for such unconstitutional measures without first priming the population with heavy media propaganda saturated with the sadness of tragedy, with dead children and innocent victims and the cries from others demanding that President Obama ‘finally’ take action and ‘do something.’

-

GUN CONTROL PETITION TO WHITE HOUSE GETS LARGE AND IMMEDIATE SUPPORT ONLINE

By Jonathan Easley | The Hill

A petition urging the Obama administration to “produce legislation that limits access to guns” has more than 25,000 signatures just hours after its inception.

“The goal of this petition is to force the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns,” it reads in part. “While a national dialogue is critical, laws are the only means in which we can reduce the number of people murdered in gun related deaths.”

A petition on the White House’s “We the People” website needs 25,000 signatures in the first month of being posted to earn an official White House response. The gun control petition – initiated in the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre on Friday – reached that threshold in a few hours.

“Powerful lobbying groups allow the ownership of guns to reach beyond the Constitution’s intended purpose of the right to bear arms,” the petition continues. “Therefore, Congress must act on what is stated law, and face the reality that access to firearms reaches beyond what the Second Amendment intends to achieve.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to answer questions about gun control at a press conference Friday, saying today was not the day to have that discussion. He emphasized that the White House was awaiting more information from Connecticut.

But the Obama administratin is hearing from some in their own party who are demanding immediate action. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) shot back at the White House’s claim that it was too soon to start a discussion on gun control, saying he was “challenging President Obama, the Congress, and the American public to act on our outrage and, finally, do something about this.”

At a press conference, President Obama said meaningful action should be taken to prevent future shooting tragedies.

The president said “it is time to take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics,” an indication that Obama could be prepared to confront gun control.

Responding to Obama’s press conference, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his organization was encouraged by Obama’s comments.

“We were moved by President Obama’s raw emotion during his remarks today,” Gross said. “We are committed to working with him to channel it into the change that is too long overdue.”

In 2010 the Brady campaign gave Obama a failing grade on pushing for stricter gun laws.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) responded that Obama needs to do more than call for action.

“Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before,” Bloomberg said in a statement. “What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever.”

In addition, a group that identified itself as “people affected by gun violence — parents, family, friends,” organized a demonstration late Friday outside the White House to tell the president “today is the day” to discuss gun control.

-

WHITE HOUSE PETITION RESPONSE: WHEN DISCUSSING THE SECOND AMENDMENT, KEEP THE FIRST IN MIND TOO

By Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary

Thank you for participating in We the People to speak out on an issue that matters to you.

Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First. President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. However, the Constitution not only guarantees an individual right to bear arms, but also enshrines the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press — fundamental principles that are essential to our democracy. Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment — or any other matter of public concern.

We recognize that the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, sparked an intense, and at times emotional, national conversation about the steps we can take as a country to reduce gun violence. In fact, your petition is one of many on the issue, and President Obama personally responded by sharing his views on this important issue.

-

-

In a recent press conference, President Obama also addressed the Second Amendment and the important perspective that law-abiding gun owners bring to the public conversation on this issue:

Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible — they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection.

But you know what, I am also betting that the majority — the vast majority — of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I’m willing to bet that they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas — that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone’s criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown — or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.

Jay Carney is White House Press Secretary

Tell us what you think about this response and We the People

—

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explicitly states that these amendments to the Constitution were put in place to restrain the federal government and discourage abuse. Ratified Dec. 15, 1791, it reads:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. “

Meanwhile, history has shown that disarmed populations and dictators always go hand in hTHEand, with abusers and seekers of power preferring a people unable to stand up for their rights and easy to trample and dominate.

Our birthright as Americans is at stake: if we don’t stand up to defend the 2nd Amendment, we stand to let all our other precious rights slip away, from freedom of speech on down.

-

THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARMED

-

-

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 22, 2012

The Founding Fathers agree: an armed population makes good government. Numerous quotes from the revolutionary era make their intent extremely clear — that individuals were meant to keep and bear arms for the protection of the country and the defense of its Constitution and Bill of Rights.

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.” - Joseph Stalin

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” - Anonymous American adage

“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” 
– Samuel Adams

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…” – Tench Coxe 1788

“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” - Joseph Stalin

“In earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.” - Zbigniew Brzezinski

“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.” - Joseph Stalin

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” - Joseph Stalin

“The only real power comes out of a long rifle.” - Joseph Stalin

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” 
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” - Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons), 1938

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
” –Thomas Paine

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
” – Ben Franklin

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” - Joseph Stalin

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 
– Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?” – Patrick Henry

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” 
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“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…” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” – George Mason

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” 
– Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

“The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.” - Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War”, July, 1775

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong, “Problems of War and Strategy”, 1938

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee, 1778

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” - Hubert Humphrey, “Know Your Lawmakers”, Guns magazine, February 1960

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” - Adolf Hitler, April 1942

“If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.” - Orrin Hatch, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” – William S. Burroughs, 1991

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
- George Washington

-

-

NULLIFICATION: THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY

THE TENTH AMENDMENT: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nullification The Rightful Remedy: What do we do when the federal government steps outside of it’s Constitutional boundaries? Do we ‘vote the bums out’ and hope that the new bums limit their own power? Do we ask federal judges in black robes to limit the federal government’s power? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn’t think so, and neither do we. The rightful remedy to federal tyranny rests in the hands of the people and the States that created the federal government in the first place. It’s called Nullification, and it’s an idea whose time has come. This documentary explores the history of state nullification, and how it is being used today to push back against the encroachment of federal power.

-

STATES’ RIGHTS PUSHED IN BILL THAT WOULD ‘ASSERT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE’

-

-

Written by Jerry Mitchell | Clarion Ledger

January 24, 2013

More than a half century ago, Mississippi created a state Sovereignty Commission to block enforcement of federal laws.

Now two key state lawmakers are introducing legislation to attempt to do much the same thing. House Bill 490 would create a committee to help neutralize federal laws and regulations “outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution.”

Robert McElvaine, professor of history at Millsaps College, said all this bill will accomplish is to put Mississippi up for ridicule. “ ‘The Neutralization of Federal Law’?” he said. “I am astounded to see such a measure introduced in the 21st century. Do the authors of the bill see Mississippi as part of the United States?”

He pointed out that the issue of state sovereignty “was settled by a terrible war 150 years ago as well as by numerous Supreme Court decisions.”

House Insurance Committee Chairman Gary Chism, R-Columbus, principal author of the bill with Ways and Means Chairman Jeff Smith, R-Columbus, said the legislation is meant to enforce the 10th Amendment, which says powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people.

Talk of opposing federal law started with federal health care reform and has since been fueled by the push to change federal gun laws, he said. “It’s too much intrusion. You’re bleeding into our constitutional rights.”

He rejected comparisons to the Sovereignty Commission, which became a segregationist spy agency. “We abide by all the Constitution,” he said. “The 13th and 14th Amendments (abolishing slavery and giving freed slaves citizenship) — we honor those, too. It has nothing to do with black and white.”

The bill accuses the federal government of seizing power: “We reject and deny this unauthorized and excessive abuse of power, which has primarily acted as a detriment to states’ rights and individual rights.”

The proposed Joint Legislative Committee on the Neutralization of Federal Law would review existing federal laws and executive orders and recommend those to be “neutralized.” If the majority of lawmakers back the recommendation, Mississippi “and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order.”

George Cochran, professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law, said it’s obvious the bill is unconstitutional.

He pointed to Article VI of the Constitution, which says the Constitution, the U.S. laws and treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

States trying to block federal laws is nothing new, dating to the late 1700s when the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures unsuccessfully challenged the federal Alien and Sedition Acts.

Throughout the years, states have made arguments for “nullification,” “interposition” and now “neutralization” aimed at blocking federal law, McElvaine said.

“It all boils down to the same completely discredited argument,” he said. “When John C. Calhoun and South Carolina attempted to nullify federal law in the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson forcefully rejected the concept.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 ordered the desegregation of public schools, “the Mississippi Legislature kept passing horrible bills, condemning the federal government,” recalled veteran journalist Bill Minor. “There was even a bill to arrest any federal officer who tried to serve an arrest on any official of Mississippi who refused to carry out anti-segregation laws.”

The Joint Legislative Committee on the Neutralization of Federal Laws would be made up of the lieutenant governor, six lawmakers appointed by him, the speaker of the House and six lawmakers appointed by him.

The Sovereignty Commission was made up of the governor, three citizens appointed by him, the lieutenant governor, two lawmakers appointed by him, the speaker of the House, three lawmakers appointed by him and the attorney general. (The state Supreme Court has ruled that those in the executive branch are barred from serving on legislative committees.)

Lawmakers created the commission in 1956, giving it broad law enforcement and judicial powers to “perform any and all acts and things deemed necessary and proper to protect the sovereignty of the State of Mississippi, and her sister states, from encroachment thereon by the Federal Government or any branch.”

The commission became a spy and propaganda agency aimed at preserving segregation, collecting spy files on more than 10,000 people, including Elvis Presley.

“The main issues for which ‘states’ rights’ have been used, such as slavery and segregation,” McElvaine said, “should be more accurately termed ‘states’ wrongs.’ ”

Laura Hipp, director of communications for Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves, said he has been reviewing and referring the nearly 1,000 Senate bills “on subjects important to move our state forward like education reform and improving the state’s businesses climate and has not had the opportunity to see any House legislation.”

Civil rights veteran Leslie Burl McLemore said the bill strikes him as “grandstanding.”

Director of the Fannie Lou Hamer National Institute on Citizenship and Democracy at Jackson State University, McLemore said, “In subtle and not so subtle ways in Mississippi — and a good bit of the South — we fight the Civil War every day. The drum-beating, rabid right-wingers long for those years, but we won’t revisit those years any time soon.”

He said it seems as if some lawmakers “have not really read the history of Mississippi, which I think is unfortunate.”

He predicted the state would continue to evolve, resulting in a better understanding between the people and those who govern them. “Mississippi,” he said, “is a unique and incredible place.”

-

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION STARTED OVER DISARMAMENT

Infowars.com
January 23, 2013

The American revolution started on April 19, 1775 in response to an attempt by the British regulars to disarm the militia of their stockpiles near Lexington. It became the shot heard ’round the world. The subsequent Constitution and Bill of Rights set up checks and balances, in part as a response to various types of British abuse and interference.

Today, the establishment has openly violated much the Constitution and Bill of Rights, wantonly spied on communications without warrant and staked TSA agents at airports to abuse the traveling public despite the 4th Amendment, and has conducted a long train of abuses. Now it seeks to dismantle the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, removing yet another important check on government power.

-

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
– Thomas Jefferson, 1764

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
– Thomas Jefferson

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
– Ben Franklin

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
–Thomas Paine

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
– George Washington

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
–Patrick Henry.

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
– Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
–Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
–James Madison.

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…
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
– George Mason

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
–Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
– Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

-

-

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

-

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

-

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

-

…In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

-

…We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

.

- Thomas Jefferson – excerpts from The Declaration of Independence

-

STEWART RHODES: GUN OWNERS FACE THEIR GREATEST SINGLE THREAT TO LIBERTIES SINCE 1775

-

STEWART RHODES: HOW WILL MILITARY AND POLICE RESPOND TO THE SYSTEMATIC GUN GRAB

Published on Jan 1, 2013

Despite calling in the same year for an outright ban on all firearms, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is set to introduce legislation that would gut the second amendment, said in 1995 that she carried a concealed gun in order to protect herself against terrorists.

-

BOB BARR: WE MUST NOT GIVE UP OUR GUNS TO OBAMA

Published on Dec 20, 2012

Alex Jones talks with former federal prosecutor and a former member of the United States House of Representatives for Georgia’s 7th congressional district, Bob Barr. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in the 2008 election. Mr. Barr sits on the NRA board and will talk with Alex about the effort to disarm the American people.

-

PASTOR CHUCK BALDWIN: IF WE LOSE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TYRANNY WILL ENGULF THE WORLD

-

-

PASTOR CHUCK BALDWIN: MY LINE IN THE SAND IS DRAWN HERE!

NewsWithViews.com

January 4, 2013

If Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun grabbers have their way, the American citizenry will have all of their firearms taken away. If their current attempt to outlaw semi-automatic rifles is successful, does anyone think it will stop there? Don’t be naïve! The goal of people like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, et al., has always been total gun confiscation. In fact, Senator Feinstein is actually on record as saying so.

According to Infowars.com, “Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinstein’s bill would criminalize millions of Americans and completely eviscerate second amendment rights.

“She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to target law-abiding American gun owners.

“On Thursday, Feinstein will introduce her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

“Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

“It is a gun confiscation bill.

“The proposed bill is open declaration of war on the Second Amendment.

“It’s no coincidence that the communist Chinese, the biggest holders of U.S. debt, have demanded the American people be disarmed. History tells us that it is the instinct of all tyrants to disarm the slaves.”

The report plays a video in which Senator Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

See the report here.

Writing for the National Association for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown said, “After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, I can only describe it as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

“The definition of an ‘Assault Weapon’ in this bill is so broad you can drive a truck through it! They’re targeting EVERYTHING–rifles, shotguns and even handguns.

“You see, the gun-grabbers are going for broke.

“Even owners of supposedly ‘grandfathered’ firearms will be treated like common criminals.

“If passed, Feinstein’s so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban would:

“–Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns;

“–Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one ‘military characteristic’–which could mean just about anything that makes a gun ‘look scary.’

“–Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;

“–Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and unnecessary fingerprinting;

“–Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law. That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

“And you and I both know registration is only the first step toward outright confiscation. So don’t be fooled.”

See the report here.

As I stated in this column last week, “The semi-automatic rifle is the vanguard of our liberty; it is the surest and most trustworthy means of our self-defense; and it is the primary companion of any man who would both protect and feed his family.

“Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”

In that column I also quoted Thomas Jefferson who rightly observed, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

See my column here.

And it is Jefferson’s observation that the “strongest reason” that the American people must always retain the right to keep and bear arms is “to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” that is universally ignored in the modern gun-control debate.

Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy–whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US
armed forces. Firearms–especially semi-automatic rifles–in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.

Here’s how we must fight:

1. We must literally inundate our US representatives and senators with the most vociferous protest.

We must make sure that every representative and senator in America is told that under no uncertain terms their reelection will be determined by how they vote on this issue. Obviously, people such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer come from liberal, anti-gun states–which is why they feel safe in proposing these draconian gun-control measures. However, the vast majority of US House members represent average God-fearing Americans to whom the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct. And make no mistake about it: the legislative battle will be won or lost in the US House of Representatives.

Here in Montana, however, our two US senators (both Democrats) proudly profess to be pro-Second Amendment. Montanans should be sending a strong message to both of these senators to hold the line for our right to keep and bear arms–including semi-automatic rifles. I cannot imagine that any civil magistrate from either major political party could hope to be reelected in the State of Montana who would support Senator Feinstein’s gun-grab bill. And I would hope and pray that there would be dozens of other states in which the Second Amendment is equally honored.

Folks, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS NOW! If we expect to retain any semblance of freedom for our posterity, we must pick up the phones and barrage our representatives and senators with opposition to this gun-control bill. And we must do it NOW! Furthermore, we must let our elected officials know that under no uncertain terms there can be NO COMPROMISE, that only outright opposition to any new gun-control measures will be deemed acceptable. There are already far too many gun-control laws in this country. We cannot accept any more abridgements and restrictions to our right to keep and bear arms. NO MORE!

2. We must demand of our State governors and legislators that they resist any attempts of the federal government to outlaw our firearms.

Should the Republican-led House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., cave-in to the Obama gun-grab like they did on Obama’s tax increases, it will be up to the states to say NO! If there is a single issue for which individual, sovereign states would be willing to defy the federal government
and protect the rights and liberties of their citizens, it will be this issue. If the states, and liberty-minded people of the states, do not stand as one on this issue, there is no issue for which they would stand. We either draw the line on this issue or our liberties are gone forever!

This means State legislatures should pass laws defying the federal gun ban and protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms within their states. Governors should be willing to utilize State law enforcement agencies to protect their citizens’ right to keep (and not register) their guns, and county sheriffs should stiffen their backs and refuse to allow any federal police agency from enforcing the gun ban. After all, the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in his or her county, trumping even federal law enforcement officers.

3. Individual citizens like you and I must be willing to draw our personal line in the sand on this issue and refuse to comply with any law requiring us to register or surrender our firearms–including our semi-automatic rifles.

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

It is time RIGHT NOW for every American citizen to make up his or her mind on this issue.

There are many laws, which I personally find repugnant and even unconstitutional, to which I grudgingly submit. For example, while I very much understand, and even philosophically agree with, those who refuse to pay income taxes, I pay income taxes. Even though I believe the income tax to be unconstitutional, onerous, and maybe even nefarious, I have not drawn my line in the sand on that issue. I haven’t drawn a line in the sand on the requirement for all sorts of government licenses, i.e., marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, CCW permits, Social Security cards, etc., even though I personally believe that many requirements for licensure stretch the boundaries of legitimate government. And, again, even though I understand those who refuse to take them, I have a marriage license, a driver’s license, a CCW permit, and a Social Security card. There are many issues over which I am willing to be annoyed, but for the sake of perceived Christian testimony and/or perceived good citizenship, I reluctantly and grudgingly comply. But on the issue of taking away my right to keep and bear arms–including a semi-automatic rifle–I absolutely refuse to comply!

My line in the sand is drawn here!

Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.

It is no hyperbole to say that this attempt by people such as Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein to make outlaws out of law-abiding citizens for simply exercising our right to keep and bear arms is the most important political battle of our lifetimes! I am not exaggerating when I say that the future of freedom and liberty for our children and for our country–not to mention the future of our own personal lives and freedom–hang in the balance.

-

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS OUR RIGHTS TO SHOOT TYRANTS, NOT DEER

BY ANDREW NAPOLITANO | WORLD NET DAILY

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free, just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior – like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy – immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government – whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force – is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty – the personal dominion over self – by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether or not to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century – from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad – have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were they eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

-

DO GUN CONTROL LAWS CONTROL GUNS?

Facts show restrictions ‘do not save lives but cost lives’

by Thomas Sowell | WORLD NET DAILY

The gun-control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the overriding factual question is whether gun-control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun-control advocates claim, gun-control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the 18th Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun-control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun-control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets, but New York state’s recent gun-control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun-control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting – even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun-control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don’t know – and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don’t have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun-control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest and has been heard by no one – certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.

Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun-control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun-control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun-control zealots that if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither – especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun-control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun-control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

Gun-control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to “make a statement” – but all at the cost of other people’s lives.

-

AMERICANS, NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS!

Stanislav Mishin
Pravda.ru
January 10, 2013

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

-

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS PLOT TO TAKE AMERICAN GUNS

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
December 20, 2012

-

-

Outrageously, foreign governments are now chiming in to support the U.S. media bandwagon that is trying to undermine Americans’ Constitutionally-protected 2nd Amendment rights.

The Communist Chinese government has now backed the disarming rhetoric of the globalist establishment in an article published by state-run media outlet Xinhua, advising that, “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”

Radio host and filmmaker Alex Jones addresses this alarming development in a special video:

Meanwhile, Russian media outlets including RT Moscow have reacted the Connecticut shooting by supporting calls for ‘assault’ weapon bans. Weighing in on the recent tragedy, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated, “I totally agree with those who are against free arms circulation. This is my principled position.” Medvedev further vowed to uphold the existing Russian gun ban.

This only adds to the shrill chorus on U.S.-based media channels repeatedly demeaning the self-defense arguments of gun advocates while seeking to eviscerate ownership rights. The likes of Britain’s Piers Morgan and the Indian-born Fareed Zakaria (whose father was a representative in the Indian National Congress) have used their programs on CNN to continually demand bans and restrictions.

The British-based Reuters news agency published an article titled, “Even Without Congress, Obama Could Act to Restrict Guns,” essentially arguing that Barack Obama should act as a dictator instead of a president and restrict firearms via executive orders and agency policies, while circumventing Congress and the 2nd Amendment.

They, along with left-leaning American pundits and politicos, are willingly dismantling the last remaining right guaranteed to Americans under the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, with the rights of free speech, due process and privacy thoroughly shredded in the post-9/11 era via legislation like the Patriot Act and NDAA.

This shameful action is seen by many as treasonous (on the part of American figures) and, respectively, seditious on the part of these foreign players, particularly as China has been seen as a future military enemy that would have direct interest in a disarmed U.S. population. The prospect of such a Sino-American war has both sides preparing, according to recent news reports.

-

COMMUNIST CHINESE GOVERNMENT CALLS FOR AMERICANS TO BE DISARMED

China can keep its draconian police state, Americans will keep their guns

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 20, 2012

The Communist Chinese government, via its state-run media front Xinhua, has called for Americans to be disarmed, arguing that the Sandy Hook school massacre demands “no delay for U.S. gun control.”

Xinhua is virtually the press agency for the Communist Chinese government. The organization, “is subordinate to the State Council and reports to the Communist Party of China’s Propaganda and Public Information Departments.”

In other words, Xinhua represents the pinnacle of Chinese state-run media. Whatever is printed in its editorial pages represents the opinion of the ruling Communist Party leaders.

The article calls on Obama to exploit the tragedy to push his gun control agenda, adding that his lame duck situation represents “the best position to promote it,” while blaming the National Rifle Association for curtailing previous attempts to regulate firearms in the United States.

Noting that after previous mass shootings efforts to impose gun control measures “disappointingly always fail,” the editorial expresses the desire that the “gunman’s cruelty and evil may provide a strong momentum and broader public support for the restart of gun control efforts.”

The article adds that Barack Obama should begin “to make preparation for a protracted war,” with a massive political cost if he wants to eviscerate the second amendment.

As Brandon Darby points out, “The current Chinese government, the communist People’s Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.”

Indeed, it was Mao himself who said “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

This should provide a hint as to what happens when tyrants are unleashed upon a disarmed population, and why China’s call to repeal the Second Amendment rings chillingly hollow.

Appearing on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones Show today, former Congressman and NRA board member Bob Barr called for members of Congress to speak out against the Chinese government, expressing his outrage than an authoritarian regime would lecture the United States about the rights of its people.

If you want to get a taste of how a state treats citizens who refuse to submit to big government tyranny yet who are completely disarmed, look no further than China itself.

As we reported earlier this year, a villager in northern China attempting to resist a forced government relocation by remaining on his land was brutally crushed to death by a road flattening truck on the orders of a Chinese government official.

China is routinely rocked by riots staged by residents furious at the arbitrary theft of their land by the state, which under the Communist system claims that the government owns all land and that private property rights are non-existent. However, the state-owned media ensures that news of the protests does not reach a national audience.

Since the state has all the guns, the idea of government thugs arbitrarily kicking people off their own property is a routine occurrence in China. The kind of massive land grabs and forced relocations that occur almost every day in China is not a situation that has yet been visited on America primarily because Americans have the second amendment with which to protect their private property rights.

A law was recently passed in Indiana which legalizes the use of deadly force – including against a police officer – in the event of an unlawful intrusion.

The Pentagon’s recent geopolitical pivot made it clear that China was the primary military threat to the United States. In addition, Chinese military and Communist Party leaders have repeatedly indicated that they are preparing for a future war with the United States. Others have threatened to launch a nuclear attack against America during any potential confrontation over Taiwan.

In this context, it’s noteworthy that Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto refused to invade the United States during world war two because he feared the fact that there “would be a rifle behind every blade of grass,” therefore it’s not surprising that the Communist Chinese regime would also want to see the American people disarmed.

Concerns that China was also interfering in U.S. media were also heard after MGM was forced to delay the re-make of Red Dawn for two years after Chinese state media complained that depicting the invading villains as Chinese “would demonize their state and its citizens.” The bad guys were changed to North Koreans and entire portions of the film had to be revised.

It’s unprecedented to see foreigners like the Communist Chinese and others like Piers Morgan advising Obama on ways to exploit the school shooting in order to disarm the American people.

China can keep its forced relocations, its summary execution of political dissidents, its mobile execution vans, and its draconian police state. Americans will keep their guns, no matter how many times the Communist Chinese government – and all its political allies within America – talk down the second amendment.

-

OBAMA TEAMS UP WITH FOREIGN MEDIA AND GOVERNMENTS TO DESTROY SECOND AMENDMENT

Russian, Chinese, British, Australian talking heads attack second amendment

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
January 4, 2013

In the three weeks since the Sandy Hook school shooting, Americans have been browbeaten by a plethora of foreigners in the media keen to lecture them on how their constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be eviscerated.

It started with British CNN host Piers Morgan, who seized upon the tragedy within hours to push his fanatical anti-second amendment agenda, calling for a British-style total gun ban. This eventually led to a White House petition calling for Morgan to be deported which went viral and has thus far attracted over 100,000 signatures.

As USA Today highlights, the Morgan controversy served to enflame a global gun control debate with foreign media personalities around the world lecturing Americans on what rights they should be able to exercise.

“In news outlets around the world, editorials, news stories and columns demand American gun control. Our political debates have gone global and American conservatives are outnumbered in a way few even realize. Factor in the impact of worldwide social media and the Internet has given our home-grown liberals an incredible advantage and distorted what should be a uniquely American debate,” wrote Dan Gainor, noting that quasi-state owned media outlets like the BBC and Qatar’s Al-Jazeera were also demanding Americans be stripped of their inherent second amendment rights.

It was then the turn of the Communist Chinese government to jump on board the anti-gun bandwagon. An editorial in the official state-run media front Xinhua called on Barack Obama to declare “war” on the second amendment and disarm U.S. citizens as soon as possible.

China’s rhetorical assault on the second amendment was particularly ironic given that it was Chairman Mao himself who said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao’s policies were responsible for the deaths of 40-70 million people, the vast majority of whom had no means of defending themselves against the genocide overseen by Mao and his henchmen during the Cultural Revolution.

Not to be outdone, the Kremlin-funded Russia Today television network also lined up to attack gun rights. During an interview with former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, an RT anchor repeatedly interrupted Roberts when he refused to agree that the Sandy Hook massacre should lead to draconian gun control laws in America.

“I was surprised to see that RT Moscow’s interest was to spread the official US story of the shootings and to ask me if I thought “assault weapons” would be banned as a consequence,” said Roberts, noting that RT refused to acknowledge Roberts’ attempt to cite media reports that confirmed Adam Lanza’s assault rifle was left in his car and was not even used during the massacre.

In a separate discussion about the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, a Russia Today host and an RT editor tried to savage Alex Jones’ impartiality by accusing Infowars of being money driven.

Russia Today accusing another media organization of allowing their accuracy and bias to be dictated by finance is somewhat rich given that RT is funded to the tune of billions of dollars by three term dictator Vladimir Putin’s government and was conceived by Putin’s press spokesperson Aleksei Gromo.

Dan Gainor notes that RT is “the voice for the Putin regime,” and that it seized upon the Sandy Hook shooting to launch an exercise in “America-bashing” which portrayed the United States as being “filled with meth labs, murders and anti-government opponents.”

Federally-funded NPR also showcased how Australians were calling on Americans to be disarmed, despite the fact that as the Wall Street Journal documented, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”

It makes a serious statement when virtually every major global media outfit in the world is on board with the Obama administration’s aggressive campaign to eviscerate the second amendment, and serves as a reminder that Americans are under ideological assault from political enemies both foreign and domestic.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

-

CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY MOUTHPIECE DEMANDS OBAMA DISARM AMERICANS AGAIN

Beijing state media calls for “urgent gun control” in US

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 29, 2013

Global Times, a newspaper described as an “angry Chinese government mouthpiece,” recently published an editorial in which it called for “urgent gun control,” in the United States, the second Chinese Communist Party publication to do so within the last month.

The newspaper’s January 17 front page editorial entitled Political inertia hinders gun control action, states that there is “clearly an urgent need for gun control in the US,” lamenting that it will “be impossible for the country to ban guns.”

Striking an authoritarian tone, the editorial notes how, “The difficulties in promoting gun control show that US society lacks authorities willing and able to push forward reform.” Presumably, if the United States were a one party dictatorship like China, such “reforms” would be far easier to implement.

The editorial goes on to claim “how different China is from the US” and how the failure of gun control legislation “has become an institutional defect” of the United States. The piece even uses the gun control debate in the United States as an example of why the power of China’s ruling Communist dictatorship should not be weakened, arguing that, “China’s social transition cannot be developed into a process of decreasing of authorities.”

According to an investigation by Foreign Policy Magazine, Global Times is a “hyper nationalistic” publication “located within the sprawling Haiwaiban campus of the People’s Daily, the stodgy old organ of the Chinese Communist Party.” The People’s Daily owns the newspaper, which FP’s Christina Larson describes as an “angry Chinese government mouthpiece” that specializes in “attacking American values.”

Global Times is China’s third largest newspaper with a daily print readership of 2.4 million and a web audience of 10 million.

The Communist Party of China has not been shy in its advocacy for gun control in the United States. As we reported last month, the Chinese press agency Xinhua, which “is subordinate to the State Council and reports to the Communist Party of China’s Propaganda and Public Information Departments,” published a report on December 15 which urged Barack Obama to wage “a protracted war” on the second amendment.

The editorial noted that the Sandy Hook massacre provided Obama with an opportunity to push his agenda and that there should be “no delay for U.S. gun control.”

The bleak irony of Chinese government mouthpieces pushing gun control in the US is of course the fact that the Communist Party was founded by Mao Zedong, whose policies killed 40-70 million Chinese citizens during the cultural revolution.

Mao himself once remarked that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” an understanding he ruthlessly put into action by disarming people who had no means to defend themselves against his genocide.

“The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party,” Mao stated before applying gun control laws he had inherited which “made it illegal to import or possess rifles, cannons, or explosives without a permit.” The laws were updated in 1957 when the National People’s Congress outlawed the manufacture, repair, purchase, or possession of any firearm or ammunition “in contravention of safety provisions.”

China is routinely rocked by riots staged by residents furious at the arbitrary theft of their land by the state, which under the Communist system claims that the government owns all land and that private property rights are non-existent. However, the state-owned media ensures that news of the protests does not reach a national audience.

Those subjected to brutal forced relocation programs, some of which end in state-sanctioned murder, have no means to defend themselves against heavily armed police and PLA troops.

The fact that Americans would be angered at being lectured by propagandists working on behalf of a one party dictatorship about their inherent rights is understandable. That is, unless you’re someone like Peter Beinart of the Daily Beast, who in response to CNN host Piers Morgan’s crusade against the second amendment, wrote that Americans are going to have to “accept” being lectured by the likes of Morgan and “Chinese officials” as part of “Globalization 2.0,” under which Americans must submit to “increased interpenetration by foreign immigrants, products, money, and mores.”

-

POLITICAL INERTIA HINDERS GUN CONTROL ACTION

Global Times
January 17, 2013

US President Barack Obama signs executive orders on gun violence during an event at the White House in Washington D.C., capital of the United States, Jan. 16, 2013. Obama on Wednesday unveiled a sweeping and expansive package of gun violence reduction proposals, a month after the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting killed 26 people including 20 schoolchildren. (Xinhua/Zhang Jun)

Yesterday, US President Barack Obama announced a series of gun control proposals, considered extremely tough by commentators.  In fact, these proposals just reinstate former policies of prohibiting certain forms of firearms trafficking and allowing for background checks under some circumstances not currently covered, such as gun shows.

But there has already been strong dissent from the gun lobby, and analysts believe the US will have a difficult time controlling guns. It will certainly be impossible for the country to ban guns.

There is clearly an urgent need for gun control in the US, where over 30,000 people are killed by guns a year, more than the number of Americans that have died in all the years of the Iraq war. Guns are part of the history of the US as a country of immigrants, but the situation has changed over the last 200 years. It is recognized that guns are part of America’s traditions and national situation, and cannot simply be regarded as bad. But they have led to more and more problems. The difficulties in promoting gun control show that US society lacks authorities willing and able to push forward reform.

US gun management is a mirror. It shows us how different China is from the US. It would be hard to imagine if everyone in China has a gun. It also shows the enviable capacity of US self-government at the grass roots level, because only a few of the 300 million guns in the country are used for harmful purposes.

However, even in the US, there is a lot of harm caused by the failure of authorities to promote reform, which has become an institutional defect of the country. It can avoid dictatorship, but at the same time, consensus cannot be achieved to break through key problems.

US stalemate in gun control warns us that China’s social transition cannot be developed into a process of decreasing of authorities. There will be many dissenting voices in China because every reform will lead to an adjustment of people’s interests. At this time, reformists should have enough power to manage conflicting opinions in society, instead of being mastered by them. They should dare to and have the ability to go against the odds and make decisions which can best meet the interests of the majority of people.

There have been detours and mistakes in the process of China’s reform. However, the general direction of the reform is correct and we have made great progress. China’s reform has not finished. We have to constantly build our political democracy, but in the meantime, we still need to have powerful decision-making mechanism and decision-makers.

The difference in gun control between China and the US is a vivid example of the current situation. It tells us that China has to seriously observe the world and gain experiences as well as lessons. Also, China should firmly insist on its road of development which is in accordance with its own national conditions.

It is politically naïve and culturally romantic to hold the opinion that everything in the US can be a model or a standard for China.

-

-

CHUCK WOOLERY ON GUN CONTROL: FIVE REASONS WHY WE CANNOT BAN FIREARMS IN AMERICA

marketdailynews.com
November 27, 2012

Mac Slavo: Legendary game show host Chuck Woolery has a message for Americans, and he delivers it with an AR-15 in hand.

There is no doubt that it’s a tragedy when anyone takes the life of another without cause.

But to blame assault weapons for this tragedy would be like, well, blaming airplanes for the 9-11 attacks.

The problem lies with the perpetrator, not the tool used to commit the crime.

…

As of right now, the Constitution is still the law of the land. And since we are a nation of laws and not men, we need to follow it carefully.

…

The second amendment allows for assault weapons. The left argues that the founding fathers didn’t even know what an assault weapon was. As usual, this argument is wrong again.

To say that the Constitution limits the kind of guns we can own would be like saying the Constitution limits the kind of religion people can practice.

…

Our founding fathers wanted every citizen to be armed equal to the army in case of takeover by a tyrannical government. They wanted us to have protection… from them!

…

Crazed criminals shooting up innocent people is a tragedy, but all the gun bans in the world will not stop them. Criminals will always find the weapons they need to carry out their crime.

The only people that will be going unarmed are the law-abiding citizens like you and me.

…

When you hear people talking about banning assault weapons, know the real assault weapon is the liberal media.

Chuck Woolery’s Five Reasons For Why We Cannot Ban Firearms in America:

–

With more guns sold in America last year than there are soldiers in the world’s ten largest armed forces, Americans are vehemently rejecting the notion that the U.S. Constitution is an outdated document.

Whether it’s California democrat Dianne Feistein attempting to ban rifles across the country, attempts to restrict the purchase of ammunition, or the United Nations making a power-play over America’s sovereignty, the fight for our right to bear arms is in full swing.

Victory must be had, because the alternative is a world where the people will forever be wards and slaves of a State bent on total control.

-

BRUCE WILLIS: DON’T INFRINGE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

RYAN PEARSON
AP Entertainment Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Bruce Willis says he’s against new gun control laws that could infringe on Second Amendment rights. The “Die Hard” star also dismisses any link between Hollywood shootouts and real-life gun violence.

“I think that you can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone,” Willis told The Associated Press in a recent interview while promoting his latest film, “A Good Day To Die Hard.” ”If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?”

Willis’ fifth outing as wise-cracking cop John McClane, due in theaters Feb. 14, comes as his action franchise marks its 25th anniversary. The 57-year-old actor will also be seen firing away at bad guys in the upcoming sequels “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” and “Red 2,” both due later this year.

But he believes “the real topic is diminished” when observers link Hollywood entertainment with high-profile mass shootings like those last year in Connecticut and Colorado.

“No one commits a crime because they saw a film. There’s nothing to support that,” Willis said. “We’re not making movies about people that have gone berserk, or gone nuts. Those kind of movies wouldn’t last very long at all.”

Willis added that he doesn’t see how additional legislation could prevent future mass shootings.

“It’s a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families,” he said. “I’m a father and it’s just a tragedy. But I don’t know how you legislate insanity. I don’t know what you do about it. I don’t even know how you begin to stop that.”

-

BEN SWANN: ARE CALLS FOR STRICTER GUN LAWS REALLY ABOUT GUNS?

-

BEN SWANN: REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME BY ISSUING MORE CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS

-

BEN SWANN SPECIAL ON GUN CONTROL

-

THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS BOTH KEEPING AND BEARING ARMS

Ilya Shapiro
cato.org
February 12, 2013

Even before its recent enactmentof ill-advised and (at least partially) unconstitutional gun-control measures, New York was no stranger to draconian restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The Empire State, like most states, requires a license to carry a handgun outside of one’s home, but differs from many by requiring prospective licensees to show “proper cause” before obtaining a license. State officials have broad discretion in finding such proper cause, which for non-celebrities typically requires proof of extraordinary personal danger documented by threats to one’s life — effectively leaving criminals, bodyguards, and retired law enforcement officers as the only armed civilians in public places.

Unable to make such a showing and thus denied licenses, a diverse group of New Yorkers, represented by Alan Gura — who successfully argued District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) at the Supreme Court — filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the licensing scheme. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the law after purportedly applying “intermediate scrutiny,” which allows a challenged statute to survive only if it is “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.”

But the Second Circuit gave short thrift to the Second Amendment, treating New York’s restrictions as garden-variety legislation rather than measures infringing on a core constitutional right. In legal terms, the court effectively employed “rational-basis review,” which simply requires legislation to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Instead of requiring the state to show that its restriction on carrying firearms for basic self-defense has some concrete connection to public safety and crime prevention, the court deferred to the political branches by finding that assessing “the risks and benefits of handgun possession” and creating licensing schemes are “precisely the type of discretionary judgment[s] that officials in the legislative and executive branches of state government regularly make.”

The plaintiffs have now asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling and provide guidance to all lower courts regarding how to evaluate laws in tension with the Second Amendment. Today, Cato filed a brief supporting that petition. Like any constitutional right, the Second Amendment has no force absent a clear jurisprudential doctrine that ensures its enforcement. While the Second Circuit has applied a very deferential standard, other courts have expounded different doctrines since the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. For example, the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit demands that a restriction on Second Amendment rights satisfy a heightened level of scrutiny that requires “an extremely strong public-interest justification and a close fit between the government’s means and its end.” Given divergent lower-court rulings and the current political climate, the Second Amendment is in dire need of a clarified and robust standard of review — much like that afforded other constitutional rights, requiring federal and state governments to prove that laws infringing those rights are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Whatever the standard of review may ultimately turn out to be, Kachalsky v. Cacacse provides an excellent vehicle for the Supreme Court to pronounce it — and to show that the Second Amendment protects more than the right to keep a gun in one’s home.

-

DEROY MURDOCK: CONTROL GOVERNMENT’S GUNS!

As Washington politicians aim to restrict the Second Amendment, they should look in the mirror. The time is now to control government’s guns. Overarmed federal officials increasingly employ military tactics as a first resort in routine law enforcement. From food-safety cases to mundane financial matters, battle-ready public employees are turning America into the United States of SWAT.

FBI agents and U.S. marshals understandably are well-fortified, given their frequent run-ins with ruthless bad guys. However, as my old friend and fellow columnist Quin Hillyer notes, armed officers — if not Special Weapons and Tactics crews — populate these federal agencies: the National Park Service; the Postal Inspection Service; the departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Labor and Veterans Affairs; the bureaus of Land Management and Indian Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Even Small Business Administration and Railroad Retirement Board staffers pack heat.

These “ninja bureaucrats,” as Hillyer calls them, run rampant. They, and often their local-government counterparts, deploy weapons against harmless, frequently innocent Americans who typically are accused of nonviolent civil or administrative violations.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration SWAT unit in April 2010 struck Rainbow Acres Farm in Lancaster, Pa. From there, farmer Dan Allgyer had illegally shipped unpasteurized milk across state lines. Ignoring a woman’s right to choose raw milk, Washington launched an armed federal response against this Amish-run dairy. It subsequently folded.

When financial questions arose regarding Mountain Pure Beverage Co. in Arkansas, Washington did not send a few staffers to inspect documents. Instead, last spring, some 50 armed Treasury agents breached the company’s Little Rock headquarters. They seized records, herded employees into the cafeteria, snatched their cellphones and refused to let them consult attorneys.

“We’re the federal government,” Mountain Pure’s comptroller, Jerry Miller, says one pistol-packing fed told him. “We can do what we want, when we want, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

A U.S. Department of Education SWAT force burst into Kenneth Wright’s home in Stockton in June 2011. “I look out of my window, and I see 15 police officers,” Wright told KXTV-TV in Sacramento. He said one officer forced him out of the house and down onto the front lawn. “He had his knee on my back, and I had no idea why they were there,” Wright said. While officers searched his house, he said, “they put me in handcuffs in a hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids,” then ages 3, 7 and 11.

The feds sought Wright’s estranged wife, apparently for suspected financial-aid fraud. However, she had moved away a year earlier. Regardless, such a mobilization seems unnecessary to probe someone for possibly swindling scholarship money.

In August 2011, armed federal Fish and Wildlife agents stormed into the Memphis and Nashville factories of Gibson Guitar, which helps Jackson Browne, B.B. King and other legends sound amazing. What clear and present danger did Gibson pose? Rather than import finished guitar components, it purchased raw ebony and rosewood from India so that American workers — not Indians — could manufacture fingerboards and other electric-guitar parts.

“SWAT teams have been used to break up neighborhood poker games, sent into bars and fraternities suspected of allowing underage drinking, and even to enforce alcohol and occupational licensing regulations,” including armed incursions against several black barber shops in Orlando, Fla., according to the Huffington Post’s Radley Balko, who studiously chronicles this topic. He recalls a federal SWAT outfit that invaded an Atlanta deejay’s studio on suspicion of copyright infringement. When several Tibetan monks on a peace mission overstayed their visas, a federal SWAT unit cornered them. Texas SWAT officers targeted an Austin man accused of stealing koi from a fishpond. And a Virginia SWAT squad killed optometrist Sal Culosi while arresting him for sports gambling.

As gun stores currently enjoy land-sale business, some Americans are arming themselves to ensure against circumstances as yet unseen. They justifiably worry that a government that aims gun barrels at Amish dairy farmers is capable of the unimaginable.

Deroy Murdock is a Fox News contributor and a media fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Email Deroy.Murdock@gmail.com.

-

GUN GRAB IN THE UNITED STATES PRECLUDES THE UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY TALKS TO DISARM THE WORLD

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
December 26, 2012

While the mainstream media condemns Wayne LaPierre, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association (NRA) for commenting that having armed police officers stationed at schools across the country would curb gun-related crimes committed on campuses because “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, the Sidewell Friends School, where President Obama’s two daughter attend, have 11 security officers and is seeking to hire armed police officers to patrol the campus.

Since the Sandy Hook shooting, gun sales have sky-rocketed as Americans are rightly convinced that the Obama administration is going to pass legislation banning semi-automatic guns and high-capacity magazines, thereby rendering US citizens unable to defend themselves from this tyrannical government.

Intimidation tactics used in up-state New York by mainstream media are impeding on the privacy of registered gun owners to coerce them into following suit with the national debate against the 2nd Amendment. The names and address of all gun permit holders were published along with maps in an effort to demonize registered gun owners.

The excuse for such a blatant disregard for individual privacy was explained as giving lawmakers the necessity to “expand the amount of information the public can find out about gun owners.” Unlike sex offenders, gun owners are not obligated to alert their neighborhood of their presence. Some special interest groups would like to change that.

Mainstream distraction from the schemes of the current administration with regard to gun control are evidenced in the tit-for-tat battle over whether or not David Gregory, host of Meet The Press violated Washington DC regulations by presenting a high-capacity magazine on a recent episode of the show. Other distractions include a rumor turned epic search on the internet for a supposed connection between Peter Lanza and the US Senate LIBOR Hearings. No such connection is factually based. In fact this lie, perpetrated by many alternative media sites was invented by a known disinfo agent and an anonymous person on a website attributed to Anonymous.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham spoke with Gregory about gun-control, affirming that assault weapons bans do not work. Since the number of concealed weapons permits has risen since the 1994 assault weapons ban ended in 2004, the proof of less gun-related violence would logically be attributed to more law-abiding citizens legally allowed to carry their weapons in public under concealment is a clear determent from criminals enacting violence against them.

The University of Pennsylvania study of the Clinton assault weapons ban concluded that the legislation had no effect on the naturally occurring decrease in gun-related violence because the ban only exempt gun and magazines that were manufactured prior to 1994. The statistical fact that mass shootings are so rare makes them impossible to attribute to the availability of guns to the American public.

To confuse the push by Obama on gun-control, he and Attorney General Eric Holder are teaming up to recommend that immigrants to America retain the ability to purchase guns while natural born US citizens fight to keep their 2nd Amendment intact.

Earlier this year, Holder proposed to throw out the 90 day residency requirement rule because “This rule would finalize the interim final rule published on June 7, 2012 by removing the 90-day State residency requirement for aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or acquire a firearm. The Department has determined that the Gun Control Act does not permit ATF to impose a regulatory requirement that aliens lawfully present in the United States are subject to a 90-day State residency requirement when such a requirement is not applicable to U.S. citizens.”

The move would allow immigrants to more easily purchase guns and in April 2013 it is slated for passage or failure on Capitol Hill.
Buy-back programs are sweeping the nation as an alternative to legislation banning guns. Considering if Americans will simply hand over their 2nd Amendment under guise of creating gun-free zones, then all will be safer for it; however nothing can be further from the truth.

Spear-headed by Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader and John Boehner, Speaker of the House, was a letter supported by 40 other members of Congress demanding a national gun buy-back program because they “have proven successful in communities across the nation.” And for the purpose of disarming Americans, yes it is successful.

This comes on the heels of Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposal that there be a federal program funding national gun buy-backs. And New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recommended confiscation of guns “as an option” as well as forcing Americans to sell their guns to the state to remove them from average citizens. Having a gun is illegal in New York City. This would stretch this attack on the 2nd Amendment across the nation should New York City become the new national model.

In March of 2013, the UN General Assembly will reconvene for talks to reach an agreement in the Arms Trade Treaty. A draft treaty under consideration would demand America conforms to international regulations on guns by:

• Enact international licensing requirements for Americans
• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans
• Allow governments to retain access to assault weapons
• Ban trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic guns
• Create and mandate international registry to organize gun confiscation

The mainstream media is propagandizing to the general public with disinformation and talking points and scourge those celebrities that are not jumping on the bandwagon. While the sheeple of America simply agree with every assertion without evidence suggested by the talking heads on daytime talk shows, certain members our collective refuse to allow the violence of few to affect the lives of us all.

-

JAMES F. TRACY: OBAMA’S PROPOSALS FAIL TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

-

Published on Feb 8, 2013

James F. Tracy says that the gun control package proposed by Barack Obama is not going to be effective in reducing the rampant amount of gun-related violence in the country.

In the background of this President Obama on Wednesday formally proposed the most expansive gun-control policies in generations and initiated 23 separate executive actions aimed at curbing what he called “the epidemic of gun violence in this country.” Meanwhile a Nobel Prize-winning economist has described America’s largest gun lobby group as an “insane organization” that is pushing the country towards dystopia. “What strikes me is we’ve actually gotten a glimpse into the mindset, though, of the pro-gun people…It’s bizarre,” Krugman said, adding that the NRA believes “America cannot manage unless everybody’s prepared to shoot intruders.” Krugman’s remarks come nearly two months after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut where 20 small children and six school staff members were murdered. Experts believe the deadly mass shooting served as a tipping point in the gun control debate and that the NRA is targeted to fail as a result.

Press TV has talked with James F. Tracy, associate professor at the Florida Atlantic University to further discuss the issue at hand. What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Considering the figures that have come in with nearly 1500 people killed in gun-related violence since just December alone and one mass shooting taking place once a month since 2009.

Do you think that Barack Obama’s package of gun-control law reforms is enough?

Tracy: Well, thank you for having me. I believe that more or less what he is proposing involves making things more strict for law-abiding citizens.

It is not going to make things more difficult for criminals or the equivalent from purchasing guns.

If we really want to have a solution to the epidemic of mass shootings in this country, one thing we could do is to look at the fact that many of these shooting involve individuals who have been on psychotropic drugs, anti-depressants, atypical anti-psychotics; that cause homicidality and suicidality.

That is something that is not actually being concerned. I do not think that there is actually anything that the government can do to prevent criminals or those intent on mass shootings or the equivalent from obtaining weapons.

Press TV: Right but professor, also looking at the way guns have been marketed thus far, specifically by gun lobbyist groups; they seem to be really banking on the second amendment, which gives the constitutional rights of bearing arms.

However do you think that it has been marketed in such a way that Americans do feel that they need to have guns in order to preserve their freedoms?

Tracy: Well, gun sales are certainly up and there is concern among many regardless of their political stride, that they are going to be increased governmental measures preventing individuals from being able to lawfully purchase and own firearms.

So that may very well be a concern. I am not sure as to whether or not it is not a matter of marketing.

I think there is also a concern among a good percentage of the population that we could face an economic crisis or the equivalent and one would desire that sort of protection.

Press TV: Well, also on the one hand there is this debate about stricter gun control and basically a tight-fixing loopholes within the laws that already exist but on the other hand we are seeing steps taken such as schools requiring the teachers and janitors to be armed to protect the children.

Is this the answer?

Tracy: It may very well be because these schools and other areas where no one is actually armed, you do have police in some schools and certainly in schools that are located to more affluent group of individuals and their children, they have armed guards but it is not the case with the majority of the public schools, so if someone is intent on doing harm, they know where to go to find disarmed body of people.

-

JUDGE JEANINE: “OWNING A GUN, IS MY GOD-GIVEN RIGHT!”

-

AMERICA’S BIGGEST KILLERS: THE CHART ANTI-GUNNERS DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
Jan 6, 2013

What we are hearing from bloviating gun control advocates in America is nothing short of emotionally driven irrationality.

According to statistics assembled from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Center for Disease Control and the Federal Government, firearms related homicides are minuscule in comparison to other the other “big killers” in the United States.

If we look at homicide statistics in the United States it’s clear that more murders are committed with knives, bats, hammers and poisons than with firearms. As Kurt Nimmo recently noted, “ the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outpaces the number of murders committed with a rifle.”

The facts, not the drivel being spewed by the anti-gun propaganda machine, leave us wondering why some State and Federal lawmakers are so adamant about restricting the sale and ownership of handguns and rifles, especially since the majority of gun owners – close to 99% – have never committed a violent crime in their lives, let alone used a gun to do so.

Here is the chart they never want you to see:

-

-

The chart above proves that politicians and those who would disarm Americans by going so far as to call for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment have ulterior motives – or they’re completely ignorant of the facts.

Perhaps their goal is to trigger a revolution in an effort to implement a total police state over the American people.

It wouldn’t be the first time that a government has tried something like this.

-

STATISTICS PROVE: MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME

Inconvenient facts the gun control lobby cannot answer

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 7, 2013

Despite the onslaught of media propaganda in support of the Obama administration’s anti-second amendment agenda in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, the statistics clearly illustrate that gun control does not reduce violent crime and in fact has the opposite effect.

-

-

ALEX JONES: GUN STATISTICS

-

AMERICA NEXT? VIGILANTE MILITIAS PATROL MEXICO

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 5, 2013

-

-

Armed vigilante militias are now patrolling towns in Mexico as a response to the government’s failure to provide protection from criminal drug gangs. How far away is America from a similar situation?

Taking the Law Into Their Own Hands – http://blogs.wsj.com/photojournal/2013/02/03/taking-the-law-into-their-own-hands/

Chicago Police Changing Response Plan For Some 911 Calls – http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/chicago-police-changing-response-plan-for-some-911-calls/

Detroit Police: Enter At Your Own Risk – http://modernsurvivalblog.com/current-events-economics-politics/detroit-police-enter-at-your-own-risk/

Oakland Police Announce They Will Not Respond To Burglary, Grand Theft, and Other Crimes – http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/13/oakland-police-announce-they-will-not-respond-to-various-crimes-like-burglary-grand-theft-and-other-crimes/

Cutbacks force police to curtail calls for some crimes – http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-08-25-1Anresponsecops25_ST_N.htm

-

LAWLESSNESS OR ARMED CITIZENS

Tim Case
lewrockwell.com
January 23, 2013

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”

~ Sigmund Freud

Danny Glover’s recent statement to a Texas A&M audiences that: “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves (meaning the founding fathers) from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans…” is nothing short of liberal tripe. Of all people Glover should know better because the historical facts say just the opposite.

Don Kates a leading authority on the 2nd Amendment counters Glover with the well established foundation for the people’s right to keep and bear arms. “The Founders views,” Kates reminds us, “on the value of the right to arms began with Aristotle whom they revered as the font of liberal political thought. [For instance, Aristotle, POLITICS 218 (J. Sinclair trans., 1962)]: free government exalts an armed people, but oligarchies and tyrants ‘mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of their arms.’” (Emphasis mine)

We would do well to remember the statement in italics above because the history of firearm laws in U.S. history is less than laudable. In many ways the misuse of firearm laws to deny American citizens, of all races, the ownership of arms is uncomfortably sad and vehemently repugnant.

The sordid history of America’s gun control policies is the foundation of American oligarchies’ deliberate malicious bigotry, injustice, intolerance and deprivation of American citizen’s civil and natural rights. Those Americans which have been most affected have been the black community, American Indians, immigrants, and any minority that has been deemed “undesirable,” a threat to large industry, or “religiously inferior”.

At this juncture it must be understood that we are not talking about the common man or woman who in their delusional thinking accept that a utopian society can be achieved simply by the absences of firearms. Most if not all of today’s “liberals” would be horrified to learn that the “Jim Crow” laws they so routinely denounce are in fact the very product and made possible because of the anti-gun legislation they champion.

This flight of fantasy of those who adhere to anti-gun laws is dealt with in a most enlightening and well researched article written by Rabbi David Bendory, Rabbinic Director, for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) entitled Why Jews Hate Guns.

While Rabbi Bendory is dealing with the Jewish mindset his conclusions are more than applicable to the anti-gun hypocrites within the general population.

Rabbi Bendory elaborates on 10 fatal conditions within the “anti-gun” frame of mind which he identifies as:

1. A desire for utopian moral purity

2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia

3. A quest for power through victimization of peers

4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,” crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place

5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based behavioral problems that develop in childhood

6. The Ostrich Syndrome

7. Garden-variety hypocrisy

8. Adulterated religion – Jews In Name Only (JINOs)

9. Feel-good sophistry

10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior

If you really want to know what you are dealing with when you talk to friends, family members or neighbors who are of the anti-gun persuasion I highly recommend you read and take to heart the wisdom that Rabbi Bendory imparts in his article.

We are dealing with individuals within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at both the state and federal level who have conspired – along with their money power brokers – to deliberately subdue any group or groups to which they feared loosing their power; hated because of their moral persuasions; or stood as a force against illegal proclamations which included murder and overt acts of theft. This egregious assault on any human’s natural right to self defense is always draped in the palatable lie of “public safety”.

The convoluted thinking of those in power is brought home in the opinion expressed by Florida Justice Rivers H. Buford in the early part of the 20th century who wrote explaining a Florida gun control statute:

“I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . . The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. . . .[T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.”

Note that it is no longer a matter of conjecture, the message is perfectly clear; anti-gun laws were imposed on American citizens. These Americans were disarmed because they were black and an alleged threat to powerful Americans.

Forget that this opinion is based on a man’s or woman’s skin color; these are free American men and women he is speaking about! Now read it again! This opinion proclaims clearly a declaration of intolerance; if the powers that be feel they can trust you then you are allowed to own a firearm; if they fear you or want something from you – cheap labor – regardless of your skin color, the criminal force of the government will be used against you.

New York’s “Sullivan law” went into effect September 1, 1911 and as with any anti-gun legislation it favored some while suppressing others. The sun., August 03, 1919, Section 3 Magazine Section, Page 10 gives us an inside look at what really transpired with the Sullivan law.

“The Sullivan law not only made the possessor of firearms amenable to its punishment clause, but designated a stiff fine and a jail sentence for any person who sold such weapons to any one not possessed of a proper permit. Those citizens who possessed firearms were cautioned to report such ownership to Police Headquarters and, if Police Headquarters deemed it wisdom to allow the registrant to retain the pistol or revolver or whatever it chanced to be, the citizen were given a permit for which he paid a few dollars.”

“Doubtless the Sullivan law had its effect. It did not stop gang shootings nor did it stop the acquisition or the ownership of firearms. Furthermore it was used illegitimately by police. A few unfortunate citizens against whom somebody with Influence had a grudge were arrested on trumped up charges and when searched in the police station were found to have one or more revolvers in their possession. It made no difference whether the revolvers were in those pockets when the man was arrested. The fact remained that they were there when he was searched. He was guilty of a violation of the Sullivan law. The police said so and he might squall himself into apoplexy for all the good protest was going to do him. In brief, the gentleman had been framed and the guns planted and he went to jail and his enemies made merry.” (Emphasis mine)

This is precisely what the “Black Codes” – which had been in effect between 1803 and 1860 in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and the Michigan Territory – and now were revived by the Confederate states at the end of the War Between the States, were all about.

The common elements of the “Black Code” are generally accepted as being:

1. Race was defined by blood; the presence of any amount of black blood made one black

2. Employment was required of all freedmen; violators faced vagrancy charges

3. Freedmen could not assemble without the presence of a white person

4. Freedmen were assumed to be agricultural workers and their duties and hours were tightly regulated

5. Freedmen were not to be taught to read or write

6. Public facilities were segregated

7. Violators of these laws were subject to being whipped or branded.

Here again, forget that these “laws” were designed to suppress free black people, they are first and foremost free Americans regardless of their skin color. Now, ask yourself this question. What free armed American would subject himself, or his family to such a satanic law; especially articles #3 (insert government official for white person), #5, and #7 above?

Would you? I know of no one who would. Then for these types of laws to be enforceable the intended victims must first be disarmed, and so it was.

Dave Kopel makes the point for me: “…[T]he Black Codes… explicitly restricted gun possession and carrying by the freedmen. Sometimes these laws facilitated the activities of the terrorist organization Ku Klux Klan, America’s first gun control organization. The top item on the Klan’s agenda was confiscating arms from the freedmen, the better to terrorize them afterward.”

An illustration of how obtuse and dangerous laws against personal ownership of firearms can be comes to us from Richmond Virginia and the Richmond planet., of November 25, 1899. In the article entitled “An Outrageous Decision” we read the following:

The latest outrageous verdict comes from Friars Point, Miss., under date of Nov. 8, 1899, and says that in the case of W. H. Elder (white) manager of the local telephone exchange who was charged with the murder of Burt Ward (colored) the coroners jury returned a verdict that Ward committed suicide by reflecting upon a white man’s character.

There was no denial that Elder literately and premeditatedly shot Ward.

If he had killed or maimed a horse he would have been fined at least $25 besides being required to pay the value of the animal.

We call attention to the fact that this murder was committed in Mississippi, which has disfranchised the Negro.

The Richmond, Va., Times has recently declared that such a remedy is “cure-all” for race troubles. We should like much to read its explanation of this crime, or stand convicted of advocating a policy which will do us much harm and the white man no good.

Colored men must protect themselves as there is no law now in the Southland to protect them.

We believe in owning firearms, and praying to God for the nerve to use them. This kind of “lamb-offering business” has no attraction for us.

Are you beginning to get the picture? Anti-gun laws are not and never have been designed to disarm a citizenry for the purpose of public safety. They are a precursor to far more nefarious laws and actions by government agents all of which have been and will be designed to drive individuals into fear and then submission.

Once disarmed are you absolutely sure that no law will ever be enacted that wouldn’t allow government agents to take a hot branding iron and brand you and your family as someone undesirable, a malcontent, a terrorist, a religious fanatic, a homosexual, a patriot, or some other “crime” conjured up in their mentally sick witch’s brew? How about a law forcing you to have a RFID chip implanted in you which has been coded with your “crime” rather than being branded?

Think of the control the government would have over your very life if this was the case. Are you sure this won’t happen or that isn’t part and parcel of their plan?

Don’t think it can’t happen. It has happened and it has happened in this country see here here and here to list just a few. Maybe it hasn’t happened to your race or your religious group but it has happened to American citizens. Men and women who were guaranteed the same rights as you claim for yourself.

For my friends who enjoy disciplines in other shooting sports but who don’t own one of those “scary” funny looking rifles and think they can appease the power structure; Don’t you understand that they have to divest the American public of all weapons? This has also been a part of American history and at times has become as evil as to include “carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.” This is your fight as much as it is anyone else’s.

Have you considered the question of why now? Why are those bent on destroying your way of life, your liberties, and your country so resolute at this point in time in disarming you?

Is there something coming that the general public hasn’t been made aware of that will drive this nation into armed civil disobedience?

Certainly, many of us are aware that the American economy is faltering and headed for collapse. We are also aware that the American dollar is headed for the dustbin of history. The question as to when either of these events will occur may take years to answer.

Is there something more immediate and in the planning stages that the Federal government wishes to do? Some act so egregious that before it can be accomplished it would necessitate the disarming of the American public?

Certainly it is not the recent murderous death of children. If that were the case, there would have been a hue and cry in the media over the death of those innocent children, by Federal agents, at Waco, Texas.

Why does the present administration feel it is suddenly necessary to have “armed protection” for life?

Is the Federal government planning or hoping to seize American’s retirement accounts? Is it the growing freedom movement among America’s young?

I don’t know, but historically the disarming of citizens within a society has been the precursor to economic chaos or regime change.One thing is for certain and it comes from the renowned American moral and social philosopher Eric Hoffer who wrote: “You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.”

It is also reasonable to assume that the power structure did not see the voraciousness with which the American public would respond by continuing to sweep clean the ammunition isles and gun shelves of America’s firearm retailers. This act by itself has to compel any would be tyrant to at least pause.

It is more than obvious that the powerful American oligarchy is afraid of an armed American public. This alone is why Americans from all ethnic and religious backgrounds need high capacity magazines and those scary looking modern rifles. As long as Americans are armed, there is a chance we can keep this evil at bay. If you think otherwise history will prove you a fool.

-

MIKE ADAMS: BY CALLING FOR GUN CONTROL, YOU ARE UNLEASHING YOUR OWN WORST NIGHTMARE

A warning to gun grabbers and collectivist media

Mike Adams
Natural News
Dec 26, 2012

By screaming about how they wish to destroy the Second Amendment and disarm the American people, collectivist media gun grabbers and “school shooting doomsday” fear mongers have managed to do exactly what they hoped NOT to do: They have pushed millions of AR-15s and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition into the private hands of Americans.

Over the Christmas holiday, I spoke with a friend who owns the largest retail gun shop (and advanced tactical shooting range) in one of the largest U.S. cities. He told me, “Our store sales have been $100,000 a day since the Newtown shooting.” On a normal business day, his sales hover around the $10,000 mark, so what we’re witnessing here is a 1000% increase in gun sales.

“Our shelves have been stripped bare. People are buying everything in sight, AR-15s, handguns, shotguns, ammo, scopes, magazines, uppers… you name it, it’s gone. When a new shipment comes in each day, it’s gone in 10 minutes. People are waiting here for hours just to buy a rifle.”

Much the same is true across the nation. Every gun shop in America has sold out of virtually everything. Check out the ammunition available an online retailers like www.AmmoToGo.com and www.LuckyGunner.com — almost everything is sold out or backordered.

Ammo magazines are now virtually impossible to come by, too. Firearms gear sellers like www.MidwayUSA.com and www.SportsmansGuide.com are completely sold out and deep into backorders that won’t be filled until February, March or April.

And one retailer, www.Brownells.com said that in one 72-hour period last week, they sold more ammo magazines than they usually sell in three and a half YEARS.

On ebay, aluminum AR-15 30-round magazines that used to sell for $10 are now going for $60. That’s a 600% increase in value in just one week. (Note to those who are buying gold: If you had bought cases of ammo magazines instead, you could right now be experiencing a 600% return on your investment!)

Ten million more guns in the hands of honest, law-abiding Americans

The FBI instant background check system (NICS), which performs background checks on all commercial gun buyers across America, has been stressed to the breaking point. It has already experienced outages over the past 10 days, and even when it’s online, it’s registering the most intense period of firearm purchases in the history of America.

Official numbers are not yet available, but by my estimates, in the last ten days alone over 10 million firearms were purchased in America, and over a billion rounds of ammunition were taken home and put away by U.S. gun owners.

This was, of course, all a reaction to the screaming gun grabbers who are hyperventilating about guns and ignorantly calling for the abolishment of the Second Amendment and the complete disarmament of the American people. This utterly insane screaming fest by whiny, pathetic gun grabbers and collectivist control freaks has only accomplished one thing: the massive ARMAMENT of American citizens, most of whom absolutely will NOT surrender their firearms under any circumstances.

Support for the Second Amendment remains strong and resilient across real America. While the gun-grabbing, lying collectivist media is trying to create the illusion that Americans don’t like guns, the truth is that America was founded on the right to keep and bear arms, and Americans innately understand that throughout history, liberty must be defended by force. This defense of liberty depends entirely on the People owning, possessing and using firearms.

Americans fully realize that disarmament is the path to enslavement and tyranny. That’s why they rushed out to buy millions of guns and over a billion rounds of ammunition. And no amount of distorted media lies, Obama fake crying on TV or even a thousand more government-staged mass shootings will convince people to turn over their guns to the most distrusted organization on the planet… the government!

The reaction is quietly surging

Gun-owning Americans are growing increasingly sick and tired of being called bad people simply because they choose to protect their homes, families and communities with firearms. White gun owners are sick of being irrationally called “racist” for choosing to own guns. (Historical fact: Martin Luther King owned “an arsenal” of guns and often carried a concealed handgun.)

Southerners are sick and tired of being depicted as idiotic rednecks by the uppity liberal media and its distorted, race-baiting TV shows. And the gun owners of America have just about had enough of being blamed for the violence of one crazy, medicated young man who committed murder in Connecticut.

If you go to any gun show right now and talk to people, as I have, you’ll overhear talk like:

“They’re gonna have to pry this gun out of my cold, dead hands.”

“If Obama orders guns to be turned in, it will set off a civil war.”

“Dammit, I should have bought another AR-15 when I had the chance…”

Meanwhile, truly anti-America, seditious TV journalists and social media trolls are screaming things like, “Kill the NRA President” and “all gun owners should be shot” — confirming that the gun-grabbing liberals are, themselves, the promoters of gun violence in America. It’s the lawful gun owners who are so far remaining calm and keeping their firearms muzzled. But if it really comes to a shooting war — and I pray it doesn’t — it’s the gun grabbing zealots who are going to find out what it means to be “downrange.”

And if these gun-grabbing, anti-American collectivists do actually manage to pick up a firearm during a shooting war and try to do something with it, they won’t have any idea how to clear a jam, how to use the forward assist, or how to turn on the mysterious, magical red dot inside the sight. Their college PhD classes never taught them anything practical, you see. They live in the world of “theory” while people like you and I live in something called “reality.”

With rifles clumsily clasped in their hands, these anti-American collectivists will have no clue how to compensate for bullet drop (“What are all these funny lines inside the scope for?”) or how to estimate and compensate for a crosswind. (“Wind affects bullets? I thought they were too fast!”) Nor do they know the difference between a “bullet” and a piece of “brass.” (“You want to SAVE brass? Why?”) They think a “primer” is a pre-calc Cliff Notes booklet, and they think “reloaded” means something to do with The Matrix.

In other words, if it actually comes down to a shooting war between gun grabbers and gun owners, the gun owners will absolutely dominate the battlefield.

Gun owners already have the real power in America, as they should

In truth, gun owners already possess the real power in America. “All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” Mao Tse-tung famously said. And that’s why Obama wants to take away all our guns… because they are tools of real power.

The only way gun owners across America can be disarmed right now is if they can be guilt-tripped, cajoled or otherwise tricked into disarming themselves. They cannot be disarmed by force. Any attempt to do so will only result in them shooting back.

If gun owners simply put their foot down, take a stand, and announce, “We will NOT give up our Second Amendment birthright!” then not even the entire federal government can force them to do otherwise.

Stand together, lawful gun owners!

Now is the time for all lawful gun owners across America to stand together, with strength and righteousness, against the unlawful tyrants, oppressors, liars and anti-American traitors who are right now attempting to crush America’s liberty and destroy her Bill of Rights. This is the time for all true patriots who believe in America to SAY NO to Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein and all the other communist-leaning collectivists who are desperately trying to disarm the American public even while their own children, families and homes are guarded by men with guns.

It is time to say “Enough is enough!” to the lying, fear-mongering media and its laughably pathetic talking heads like Piers Morgan who has the emotional maturity of a five-year-old and the cognitive prowess of an advanced-stage Alzheimer’s patient. Already wanted for questioning in Britain, Piers Morgan has denounced all Americans and said he represents “British superiority” that demands Americans be stripped of all their firearms — just like they were during the British occupation of the colonies in 1775. (Right before our forefathers started shooting large pieces of lead through the thick skulls of British officers… see the movie “The Patriot” with Mel Gibson for a graphic depiction of how men with rifles saved America.)

Pray that Obama and Biden do not attempt to overplay their hand

In all, I can only pray that Obama and Biden do not attempt to arrogantly overplay their hand when it comes time for them to lay out their anticipated gun control “plan.”

If their plan calls for any sort of gun confiscation whatsoever — especially so-called “assault rifles” — it will very likely cause America to erupt into a shooting war.

On the other hand, if Obama and Biden limit their actions to things most gun owners would consider “reasonable,” then they can prevent any further escalation. What will gun owners consider to be “reasonable?” NOT gun registration, I can assure you. Everybody knows gun registration was Hitler’s first step preceding confiscation and then genocide.

NOT another “assault weapons” ban, either. The Clinton ban didn’t keep assault rifles out of the hands of psychopathic killers. Why would an Obama ban work any better?

NOT a ban on semi-automatic firearms. This would be seen as total disarmament of gun owners, as most firearms owned today are semi-autos. (Very few are full-auto. They are extremely rare and ridiculously expensive.)

NOT an artificial limit on standard magazine capacity. Restricting 30-round magazines would also be seen as the disarmament of gun owners. As the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow the People to be their own standing army against enemies of the nation — including domestic tyrants — any such restriction would be blatantly unconstitutional and wholly ineffective.

Gun control restrictions that might fly

Here are some things that might be considered reasonable among gun owners and therefore not result in a huge national backlash (or even a shooting war).

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with all these; they’re just things that are more likely to succeed and not meet huge resistance if proposed by the Obama administration (which is widely hated by nearly all gun owners, including the police and military):

• Mandatory waiting periods for all firearms purchases, nationwide. A 3-day waiting period would not be considered particularly restrictive or unconstitutional.

• Increased restrictions on firearms purchases by those who are on psychiatric medications. (This is not likely to even be suggested, as the Obama administration is totally in bed with Big Pharma.)

• Strict federal laws requiring firearms to be secured (locked) in any home where teenagers or children have frequent access. (There is already a federal law on this regarding children under 18, but this could be tightened to cover young adults up to age 20, for example.)

• Banning of very large 100-round capacity magazines. These drum magazines all suck anyway, as they frequently jam. This is what happened in Aurora. We should only HOPE that all psychopathic killers have 100-round drum magazines… they would kill no one!

• Mandatory federal background checks for guns sold at gun shows. (This is already required for all commercial dealers. But private transactions are currently exempted from this requirement. This is very likely to be targeted by Obama and Biden, so expect gun shows to be severely restricted in some way.)

In addition, the Obama administration is very likely to attempt to limit importations on certain types of firearms manufactured outside the United States. This might include bottom-feeding shotguns such as the Saiga-12, which the ATF attempted to restrict two years ago. Kiss your AK supply line goodbye…

Stand still… I’m reloading!

If these restrictions are not enough for the hysterically irrational gun grabbers who want to completely disarm law-abiding citizens across the country, then as one gun owner told me recently, “Sure, I’ll give ‘em all my ammo and guns, bullets first.”

That attitude pretty much sums up the topic in real America; not the fabricated delusional America portrayed and distorted by the mainstream media. The media is to real events as GMOs are to real food: It’s all engineered, and every bite delivers a little bit of poison.

In real America, people everywhere demand to keep their handguns, rifles, shotguns and 30-round magazines. They inherently know that a disarmed population has historically been enslaved by a corrupt, criminal government. They do not trust Obama — and nobody trusts the mentally unstable Biden! — and they absolutely will not give up their guns to a lying liberal gun-grabbing President.

If someone like Clint Eastwood called for everybody to give up their guns, that would be different. But not a lying, birth-certificate-fabricating, lawbreaking President whose greatest achievement has been expanding the number of Americans on welfare and food stamps.

Obama will have no real success trying to grab guns. If he’s smart, he’ll push for some marginal restrictions and declare it a success to his own screaming liberal supporters, most of whom are too uneducated to understand the details of any gun control restrictions in the first place. (Half of ‘em can’t even READ!)

Gun control IS racism

By the way, the very first gun control laws in America were put in place by the KKK. Gun control is racism. Gun freedom is equality. A gun in the hands of a free black man makes him an equal to a free white man, according to the laws of physics. This is why the Second Amendment first benefits African-Americans, and secondly everyone else.

If more African-Americans truly understood history, they would be screaming to defend the Second Amendment and make sure guns remain legal in the hands of citizens. History has shown, after all, that any concentration of firepower in the hands of the few ALWAYS gets turned against the innocent.

-

-

AN ASSAULT RIFLE VS A SPORTING RIFLE

Published on Dec 30, 2012

-

-

The media and the anti-gunners are trying to tell Americans that “assault weapons” need to be banned for public safety. The problem is, assault rifles were banned in 1986. What they want to ban now are semi-automatic sporting firearms. The firearms they want to ban account for less than 1% of the firearms used in crime. We need to stop this mindless attack on our Constitutional rights.

This link will take you to a Congressional website where you can quickly and easily email your Senators, Congressmen and the President:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

-

THE SECOND AMENDMENT…WHERE’S THE LINE?

Washington’s Blog
December 31, 2012

Gun advocates say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing us.  They even quote the Founding Fathers.

Gun control advocates want to ban all arms … or at least semi-automatic, high-capacity weapons.

But George Orwell – author of 1984 – had a different take on the whole issue. Orwell pointed out in the Tribune (October 19, 1945), the effectiveness of arms in preventing tyranny partly depends on whether the average citizen can afford the current weapon of choice possessed by the government:

The connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon–so long as there is no answer to it–gives claws to the weak.The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans–even Tibetans–could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one …The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon–or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting–not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.

If he were alive today, Orwell might say that – unless the American people create and adopt high-tech ways to defend themselves – guns will not be able to compete with drones, robots and other high-tech weapons created by the virtually unlimited American military budget.

Max Keiser linked to the following video under the headline, “Assault rifles are so passe… Say Hello To Citizen Drone Warfare”

-

-

RELATED POST: ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015

-

DR. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GETTING READY TO GO AFTER GUNS; YOU CAN’T HAVE A POLICE STATE AND AN ARMED POPULATION

Published on Dec 19, 2012

President Barack Obama has made a move towards stronger gun control in the U.S. The proposal comes after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school that took the lives of 26 people, including 20 children.  For more analysis on the gun-control debate in the U.S., RT talks to Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

-

DR. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: THE AGENDA DRIVEN NEWS

I have known for a long time that US news is agenda-driven. Tonight (December 18) I was made aware of the extent to which agenda-driven US news drives the news of the rest of the world.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, Russia Today Moscow requested a live TV interview via Skype about the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings that killed 20 young children and several adults. I was interested to know what was Moscow’s interest in the shootings, and I agreed to the interview.

I was surprised to see that RT Moscow’s interest was to spread the official US story of the shootings and to ask me if I thought “assault weapons” would be banned as a consequence.

Many things can be an assault weapon. A baseball bat, a knife, a fist, a foot, a single shot .22 rifle, a double-barrel shotgun, a fireplace poker, a six-shot revolver, a brick, a sword, a bow and arrow, a lance. A person can add many items to this short list.

Gun-control advocates have defined “assault weapon” to be a semi-automatic civilian version of military weapons, such as AR-15, the civilian version of the military M-16, and AK-47. During the Clinton administration the civilian version of these weapons was not permitted to have various harmless features because the features made the rifles have a military appearance, and the weapons were restricted to magazines that held no more than ten rounds.

Today 20 and 30 round magazines are available. For a professional, the capacity of the magazines is immaterial. With experience a person can change clips in a second. A button is pushed, the clip drops out and a new one is inserted. For reasons hard to follow, gun control advocates think that a ten-round clip turns an “assault weapon” into something else.

I told RT Moscow that the United States was the most complete police state in human history. Thanks to modern technology, Washington is able to spy on its subjects far beyond the capabilities of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Even George Orwell’s imagination in his dystopian novel, 1984, has been surpassed by Washington’s current practice. The “war on terror” is the excuse for the American Police State.

A police state, I said, was inconsistent with an armed population, and as all other constitutional amendments have fallen, the sole remaining amendment, the Second Amendment, will not survive much longer.

But why RT Moscow’s focus on “assault weapons”? The accused, Adam Lanza, was immediately declared guilty. According to the Associated Press, the Newtown, Connecticut medical examiner, Dr H. Wayne Carver said that “all the victims of the Connecticut elementary school shooting were killed up close by multiple rifle shots.” http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/183651631.html

Yet Fox News http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20346133/reports-of-multiple-dead-including-1-child-from-ct-elementary-school-shooting reports that “A CNN reporter said police recovered three weapons at the scene: a Glock and a Sig-Sauer, which are handguns, as well as a .223 Bushmaster rifle. The rifle was in the back seat of the car the gunman drove to the school, the handguns were inside the school.”

The same Fox News report says: “Security measures implemented this year at Sandy Hook [the school] kept doors locked during class hours, and people have to be buzzed in before entering. There is a camera to view whoever enters the building.” If this report is correct, how did an armed Lanza gain entry to the school?

I tried to point out to RT Moscow that these news reports indicate that the accused dead gunman, whom no one can interrogate, if he is indeed the culprit, killed the children with handguns, not with an “assault rifle” left in the car, but that the medical examiner said the children were killed with rifle shots.

The discrepancy is obvious. Either the news reports are incorrect, the medical examiner is wrong, or someone other than Adam Lanza shot the children.

This was too much for RT Moscow’s news anchor. She cut me off with her statement that the children were dead by whatever gun. Yet, the focus of the program was on “assault rifles.” This focus was reinforced when I was asked to stay online for a post-interview question.

The question from RT Moscow was whether I thought assault weapons would be banned. I answered that I thought all guns would be banned. I had already told the TV anchor that I thought that all guns would be taken away from US subjects, but that I doubted the efficacy of the ban. I told the news anchor that during the early part of the 20th century, the US, in all its wisdom, had a ban on alcohol, but alcohol was everywhere available. The alcohol ban was the origin of the crime syndicates’ fortunes. Today we have the drug ban, going back decades. The result is that drugs are everywhere, and drug syndicates are making billions. It will not be much different with a gun ban. England has a gun ban, but criminals have guns, and today the formerly unarmed British police are heavily armed. When I lived in England, guns were not banned and the police carried nightsticks, not firearms.

The focus on “assault weapons” is puzzling for another reason. According to news reports Lanza had a personality or mental disorder, or perhaps he was just different.

Regardless, he was on medication. So does the blame lie with guns or with medication?

As the agenda is to ban guns, the blame is placed on guns.

In the previous mass shooting at the Colorado movie theater, eyewitness accounts differed from the official account, and according to news accounts the suspect was involved with the government in some sort of mind control experiments and was found after the shooting sitting in a car in the movie theater parking lot.

Similarly, the Connecticut school shooting has puzzling aspects. In the real time report to the police, a teacher says that she saw “two shadows running past the gym.” http://sgtreport.com/2012/12/so-many-questions-too-few-answers-was-the-sandy-hook-massacre-an-organzied-false-flag-operation/ The police radio recording also reports two men in a van at the school stopped and detained, and various news sources report that the police arrested a man in the nearby woods. The man says, “I didn’t do it,” but how would a man out in the woods know what had just happened? There are no TVs to watch in the woods; yet, the man denied doing the shooting. Very strange.

What often happens is that there are a number of initial false reports, such as in the Connecticut case the report that Lanza’s mother was a teacher at the school and was killed at the school, that Lanza had also killed his father, and that Lanza’s brother might have been involved. Any discrepancies in the official story then get thrown out with the false reports. As the media simply goes along with the official story and does not investigate, it is impossible to know what really happened. People just accept the official story.

It seems odd, however, that RT Moscow would uncritically follow the US media in reporting the official story after experiencing, for example, the US media’s intentional misreporting of the Georgian-Russian war, which was started by the former Soviet republic of Georgia but blamed on Russia. Does RT Moscow really believe the US media that the US missile bases surrounding Russia are directed at Iran?

Americans have been well armed for several centuries, but “gun violence” is new. Why?

Are there more disturbed people? More medicated people? Have Americans lost self-control, their moral conscience? Are Americans being molded by violent movies and video games and by eleven years of their government’s slaughter of other peoples? Have Americans lost empathy for others?

Tom McNamara, a lecturer at the French National Military Academy, asks: “Do Arabs Cry For Their Children Too?” http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/18/do-arabs-cry-for-their-children-too/print

The Connecticut school shooting is a tragedy in more ways than one. Children lost their lives, families lost their children, and the tragedy is being used to disarm Americans faced with a police state growing in power and menace.

-

SOCIETY IS CRUMBLING RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES AND BANNING GUNS WON’T HELP

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Dec 17, 2012

What in the world is happening to America?  I have written many articles about how society is crumbling right in front of our eyes, but now it is getting to the point where people are going to be afraid to go to school or go shopping at the mall.  Just consider what has happened over the past week.  Adam Lanza savagely murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  42-year-old Marcus Gurrola threatened to shoot innocent shoppers and fired off more than 50 rounds in the parking lot of Fashion Island Mall in Newport Beach, California.  After police apprehended him, he told them that he “was unhappy with life”.  Earlier in the week, a crazy man wearing a hockey mask and armed with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire on the second floor of a mall in Happy Valley, Oregon.  He killed two people and injured a third.  On Saturday morning, a lone gunman walked into a hospital in Alabama and opened fire.  He killed one police officer and two hospital employees before being gunned down by another police officer.  So have we now reached the point where every school, every mall and every hospital is going to need armed security?  How will society function efficiently if everyone is constantly worried about mass murderers?

In response to the horrible tragedy in Connecticut, many in the mainstream media are suggesting that much stricter gun laws are the obvious solution.

After all, if we get rid of all the guns these crazy people won’t be able to commit these kinds of crimes, right?

Unfortunately, that is not how it works.  The criminals don’t obey gun control laws.  Banning guns will just take them out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens that just want to protect their own families.

Adam Lanza didn’t let the strict gun control laws up in Connecticut stop him from what he wanted to do.  Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and Adam Lanza broke at least three of them.

However, if there had been some armed security officers or some armed teachers at that school, they may have had a chance to protect those dear little children from being brutally gunned down.

If gun control was really the solution to our problems, then cities that have implemented strict gun control laws should be some of the safest in the entire country.

But sadly, just the opposite is true.

For example, Chicago has very strict gun laws.  But 10 people were shot in the city of Chicago on Friday alone.  Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“, and the murder rate in Chicago is about 25 percenthigher than it was last year.

So has gun control turned Chicago into a utopia?

Of course not.

And it won’t solve our problems on a national level either.

You can find more statistics about the futility of gun control right here.

Well, how would things be if we did just the opposite and everyone had a gun?

Would gun crime go through the roof?

That is what liberals were warning of when the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun.  But instead of disaster, the results turned out to be very impressive…

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

When criminals know that everyone has guns, they are much less likely to try something.  And often armed citizens are able to prevent potential mass murderers from doing more damage.  You can find several examples of this right here.

But of course most of our politicians are not interested in common sense.  Instead, they are obsessed with the idea that gun control will make our country “safe” again.

Senator Diane Feinstein says that she is ready to introduce a strict gun control bill in January that will “ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession” of many types of firearms.

Will such a law keep the criminals from getting guns?

No way.  Just look at what is happening with the cartels down in Mexico.  The criminals are always able to get guns.

If our “leaders” were really interested in stopping these mass murders, they would take a look at the role that mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs play in these incidents.  If you look at the mass murders that have occurred over the past several decades, in the vast majority of them the murderer had been using mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs…

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has raised concerns about severe acts of violence as side effects of anti-psychotic and antidepressant drugs not only on individuals but on society as well.

Just a month ago PRWeb described drug induced violence as ”medicine’s best kept secret.”

And the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRI) is calling for a federal investigation on its web page which links no less than 14 mass killings to the use of psychiatric drugs such as Prozac and Paxil.

And guess what?

According to the Washington Post, one neighbor says that Adam Lanza was “on medication”.

But will our politicians ever consider a law against such drugs?

Of course not.  The big corporations that produce those drugs give mountains of money to the campaign funds of our politicians.

So the focus of the debate will remain on guns.

And a lot of liberals would have us believe that our society could be transformed into some type of “utopia” if we could just get rid of all the guns.

Unfortunately, that is simply not true.  Our society is in an advanced state of moral decay, and this moral decay is manifesting in our society in thousands of different ways.  The corruption runs from the highest levels of society all the way down to the lowest.

For those that believe that gun control would somehow “fix America”, I have some questions for you…

Down in Texas, one set of parents kept their 10-year-old son locked in a bedroom and only fed him bread and water for months.  Eventually he died of starvation and they dumped his body in a creek.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A pastor in north Texas was recently assaulted by an enraged man who beat him to death with an electric guitar.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Police up in New Jersey say that a man kept his girlfriend padlocked in a bedroom for most of the last 10 years.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A 31-year-old man up in Canada was found guilty of raping an 8-year-old girl, breaking 16 of her bones and smashing her in the face with a hammer.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

According to the FBI, a New York City police officer is being accused of “planning the kidnap, rape, torture and cannibilization of a number of women”.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A Secret Service officer that had been assigned to protect Joe Biden’s residence has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Over in Texas, a very sick 29-year-old man stabbed his girlfriend to death and then burned his one-year-old baby alive because she had gone to court and filed for child support.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Over in Utah, a 21-year-old man is accused of stabbing his grandmother 111 times and then removing her organs with a knife.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

There are more than 3 million reports of child abuse in the United States every single year.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

An average of five children die as a result of child abuse in the United States every single day.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

The United States has the highest child abuse death rate on the entire globe.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

It is estimated that 500,000 Americans that will be born this year will be sexually abused before they turn 18.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

In the United States today, it is estimated that one out of every four girls is sexually abused before they become adults.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

If there was a way to take all of the guns away from all of the criminals, I would be all in favor of it.  Unfortunately, no government on the planet has been able to do that.

Instead, we have seen that criminals thrive whenever gun bans are instituted and the guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens.

But the bottom line is that our social decay will not be solved either by more guns or less guns.

Our social decay is the result of decades of bad decisions.  We have pushed morality out of our schools, out of government and out of almost every aspect of public life.  Now we are experiencing the bitter fruit of those decisions.

And this is not a problem that our government is going to be able to fix.  Violent crime increased by 18 percent in 2011, and this is just the beginning.

As our economy gets even worse, the rot and decay that have been eating away the foundations of America are going to become even more evident.  The number of Americans living in poverty grows with each passing day, and millions upon millions of people are becoming very desperate.

Desperate people do desperate things, and crime, rioting and looting are going to become commonplace in the United States in the years ahead.

So you can pretend that the government is going to be able to keep our society from crumbling all you want, but that is not going to help you when a gang of desperate criminals has invaded your home and is attacking your family.

We definitely should mourn for the victims in Connecticut.  It was a horrible national tragedy.

But this is just the beginning.  The fabric of our society is coming apart at the seams.  The feeling of safety and security that we all used to take for granted has been shattered, and the streets of America are going to steadily become much more dangerous.

I hope that you are ready.

-

STATISTICS SHOW GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL NOT PREVENT CRIME

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
December 31, 2012

In the 17 days since an elementary school in Connecticut was attacked, an all-out war on the 2nd Amendment and our right to bear arms has culminated in President Obama backing Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban to be introduced this January.

Two-and-a-half weeks have gone by and we have heard it all, from hypocrite celebrities who murder people with guns in movies telling us to give up our rights in reality, to Joe Biden heading a new gun violence task force while he bragged about his guns on the 2008 campaign trail.

The claim being pushed from seemingly every angle is that if we all give up our guns and our rights, it will somehow make us safer.

One of CNN host Piers Morgan’s favorite arguments is that the United Kingdom has less gun crime than the United States because of its strict gun control policies. While it may be true there are less gun crimes in the U.K. than in the U.S. based on the statistics they report, this position fails to paint the full picture.

A 2009 Telegraph article dubbed the U.K. The “violent crime capital of Europe,” noting the country had one of the highest reported violence rates in the world, a per capita rate worse than South Africa, Australia, and yes, even America.

Yet, private possession of semi-automatic weapons and handguns is prohibited in the U.K. If firearm laws and gun prohibition stop crime, how can this be possible?

Not only is the rate of rape in England and Wales per 100,000 people higher than in the U.S., but the U.S. rate has been dropping over the past seven years while the rape rates in the U.K. have risen each year for the last four. The U.K.’s Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 report recorded 45,326 serious sexual offenses, though the report notes these types of crimes are typically under-reported.

Violent crime in the U.K. increased six percent during 2010/11, but the increase was not considered “statistically significant.” The U.K. Also reported 32,714 serious knife offenses in 2010/11, although knife crimes are not required to be reported there the same way gun crimes are, so that figure may not reflect the true number.

Robberies at knifepoint have apparently become a common news item in the U.K. Just a few weeks ago, a pregnant woman was stabbed during a knifepoint car robbery when she attempted to get into a cab in East London. The following week, a man was stabbed for his headphones during a robbery in Gloucester skate park. Prior to Thanksgiving, a man was found stabbed to death in an East London petrol station, and another man was stabbed in the stomach during an attempted robbery of his cell phone as he walked through Victoria Park, Ashford that same month. These are just a few examples.

If gun control — where law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns to protect themselves from criminals — automatically equaled less crime, shouldn’t England’s crime rates be much lower?

In 2000, George Soros’ Open Society Institute released a report it dubbed “the first comprehensive state-by-state look at gun laws in the United States.” The institute compared every state’s gun laws systematically and gave states negative scores to indicate limited gun control laws or what the institute considered to be “undermining” federal law minimum standards. This report claimed that Massachusetts had the best gun control laws in the nation, while Maine had the absolute worst.

Unless something has changed substantially in the last decade, the FBI’s latest crime statistics show that Maine actually had the fewest violent crimes and aggravated assaults of any state in the nation last year, while Massachusetts was 12th highest for aggravated assaults and 15th highest for violent crimes.

Statistics also show that half of all firearm deaths in the U.S. are actually suicides. More guns are fired during suicides than during homicides in America.

While Morgan and other anti-gun advocates throw out the single statistic of less gun crime in the U.K., the rest of the statistics cannot simply be ignored to manipulate an argument.

No correlation between gun ownership and murder has been found, and data does not show that an assault weapons ban would magically stop — or even decrease — mass shootings. In fact, when the assault weapons ban was previously in place from 1994 to 2004, mass shootings actually showed a slight increase.

Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban in place, and for a weapon to be considered “semi-automatic” simply means one bullet is fired each time the trigger is pulled; the majority of guns in use today are semi-automatic.

Adam Lanza reportedly tried to buy a gun legally in the days prior to the Connecticut school massacre, but he was refused for failing to wait for the 14-day background check. The guns Lanza used in the shooting were allegedly stolen from his mother.

Connecticut’s anti-gun laws did not stop the school shooting. All of these new gun control requirements Senator Feinstein plans to introduce requiring fingerprinting, photo identification, and enhanced background checks would not have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook that day.

The majority of gun crimes are not committed by law-abiding gun owners. Criminals commit crimes. Laws punish criminals — they do not prevent crime. History shows these anti-gun laws, however, will punish law-abiding citizens as well.

-

GOD HELP US

By Ben Stein | The American Spectator

A massacre that has turned the world upside down.

December 17, 2012

I learned about the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school while we were setting up at Fox News to tape Cavuto on Business. The news was so horrible that we all felt as if we had lost our legs and could no longer stand. It was such horrible news that it simply turned the world upside down.

It still is that kind of news, and it’s incredibly depressing about the nature of humanity. And my wife and I pray all day for the souls of those dear children and for the peace, if there ever will be peace, of their families… and for the souls of the adults and the peace of those who knew and loved them.

As usual, the smartest comment about the whole subject came from John R. Coyne, Jr. “There is evil in the world. It’s beyond mental illness, beyond gun control. It is evil.”

The killer got his weapons from his mother, who apparently had bought them legally and registered them. That tells us something about what anti-gun laws would do, although maybe the mother should not have had them either. In this world, a killer devil can kill his mother and steal her guns to kill six year olds. That’s what some humans are and I am not sure what laws will stop them.

Second, I read that the killer was socially awkward (putting it mildly) and “reserved.” I know what that often means. He spent much of his miserable life playing shoot ’em up video games on line or on machines. I see a troubled young man doing that often.

Up close and personal.

In these games, the “player” just spends his whole day attempting to exercise and exorcize his loneliness and low self-esteem by shooting imaginary creatures and creating damage all day long.

At a certain point, just “killing” on the console blurs into doing it in real life. “Killing” is just what the kid does all his life. How much of a stretch is it for him to shoot into a movie theater or a political gathering or a kindergarten in “real life” if his life is so pitiful that he does not know what’s real and what is not? If you are looking for a villain, try shoot ’em up games.

Third, what motivates “great” deeds? So that a man’s name will not be forgotten and he will be sung about even after his death, goes the ancient saying. That’s what you get if you slaughter 26 totally innocent people at a grade school. If you want another villain, try the media itself, which has now given Adam Lanza fame beyond what he could have dreamt of. It is impossible to blame the media, but evil men like Adam Lanza have gamed the system to perfection.

Fifth, why are these killers always men? What is it that we teach our young men in this world that makes them think it’s a mark of manliness to kill the unarmed and innocent? Whatever it is, it’s disgusting. It’s not manly to kill any unarmed human. It’s miserable, crawling cowardice.

Finally, a comment that will enrage the beautiful people. The whole world is rightly overwrought and crazed with grief over the murder of twenty totally innocent and blameless souls last Friday in Newtown. It was and is a catastrophe for the ages.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promises to kill every Jew in Israel and then in the whole world, including babies… and he had his defenders, even at the Democratic National Convention. And it was daily life in Nazi-occupied Europe from 1939 to 1941 to kill thousands of Jewish children every day. But powerful, intelligent men and women in this country defended Hitler, spoke up for him and for keeping America from even sending arms to Britain when England stood alone. What are we to make of that? No one even mentions, no one even knows about the horrendous Armenian genocide by the Turks in 1915, when well over a million of the most talented people on the planet were wantonly murdered — and the world has still not officially called it genocide — and Hitler explicitly said it was a model for him. Who today even talks of the purposeful mass starvation of millions of beautiful Ukrainian children by Stalin? The U.S. did not say one word about it as a government. The U.S. still will not confront Turkey seriously about the Armenian children.

Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge killed roughly one third of all of its people, including children, from 1974 to about 1977 — and it was U.S. policy to avoid doing anything to stop them — because they were opposed to the North Vietnamese Communists and Communist Vietnam, which had just taken over South Vietnam — our ally. What can we say to that? We cheered the deposing of the President — Richard Nixon — who would have stopped the Khmer Rouge from taking power. There is plenty of Cambodian blood on our hands. There is plenty of blood of all kinds on our hands, especially of the most innocent and blameless among us… real babies, truly innocent.

God help us. Man is made of such crooked stuff that it is impossible to set him straight, said a famous philosopher. God help us.

-

OBAMA CALLS FOR RENEWAL OF ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

President Obama has said he’s interested in seeing an assault weapons ban reintroduced, breaking his silence on the legislation, which has persisted in spite of at least five mass shootings during his term.  At the end of a long answer to the question, “What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?” Obama said this:

“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

As a candidate in 2008, Obama campaigned on permanent reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban, and Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 indicated that the administration would lobby for a bill. But that never materialized and the White House has largely avoided talking about it.In August, after the Sikh Temple shooting, Jay Carney said, “He does support renewing the assault weapons ban.”But tonight is the first time during his first term that the sentiment has come from the president’s mouth.

-

GUN CONFISCATION BILL INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS

IRS credit to citizens who allow government to confiscate their firearms

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 17, 2013

-

On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government.

Cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act,” the proposed legislation represents another effort to convince citizens that they must voluntarily turn in their guns as a civic duty and to do their part to reduce “gun violence” and protect children, as Obama said yesterday.

The bill is yet more evidence that federal and state governments are now pulling out all stops short of door-to-door confiscation in their coordinated effort to disarm the American people.

Strikingly honest language included in the legislation specifies that the bill is part of the government’s “program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons,” in short, a program to disarm the American people.

The bill contains an exhaustive list of so-called “assault weapons” that will garner a $2,000 tax credit, including the much demonized Bushmaster AR-15 allegedly used in the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 14, 2013.

The inclusion of the IRS in the government’s attempt to grab guns is especially foreboding considering its effort to act as a Obamacare compliance enforcer. In July, we reported on a revelation made by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady that the tax agency planned to hire up to 16,500 new agents.

American taxpayers must reject such cynical enticements and stand together and support the Second Amendment against all attacks by Obama and Congress.

The latest foray against the Second Amendment and the founding principles of the republic commenced soon after the Sandy Hook incident on December 15 when California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein exploited the tragedy to call for an attack on America’s “gun culture.”

“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Feinstein said. “I will do another assault weapons ban.”

New York governor Andrew Cuomo jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon a few days later, on December 21, and proposed gun confiscation in the state. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option,” Cuomo said. He was egged on by notorious gun-grabber advocate and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg who also demanded Obama use unconstitutional executive actions against the Second Amendment.

On December 30, Feinstein said America needs to “bite the bullet” and restrict the gun rights of Americans following comments by president Obama that he would support draconian legislation aimed at the Second Amendment.

Over the next two weeks, the establishment media launched an intense anti-Second Amendment campaign and produced corporate polls in favor of “common sense” gun bans. Alex Jones appeared on the Piers Morgan Show and a flurry of pro and con pundits and commentators debated the finer points of stripping Americans of their right to own firearms.

On December 16, Obama and Joe Biden went on national television accompanied by a gaggle of children and pushed the federal government’s anti-Second Amendment agenda. Obama brazenly signed a number of unconstitutional executive actions during the performance instructing the government to roll back the Second Amendment.

-

HOUSE DEMOCRATS POISED TO INTRODUCE GUN CONTROL PACKAGE

by S.H. Blannelberry | Guns.com

Following the president’s lead, Democrats in the House of Representatives are preparing to unveil a comprehensive package of bills that will seek to curb gun violence and prevent mass shootings.

The package will include, not surprisingly, a ban on ‘assault’ weapons, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a bill that would mandate universal background checks (UBCs).

In short, it’s a facsimile of the President’s plan, which was also the impetus behind the bevy of gun control bills that are now circulating the Senate.

However, unlike the Senate, the GOP-controlled House is not expected to greet the package with much fanfare.

Given this fact, Vice President Joe Biden set up a sort of pep talk on Wednesday with House Democrats to encourage them to fight through the resistance they’re likely to face from their peers and their constituents at home.

“I don’t want to hear about ‘well we can’t take it on because it’s too politically dangerous,’” Biden said, according to Reuters. “There’s an overwhelming consensus about the need to act.”

In his attempt to allay their fears about the political toxicity that accompanies those who vote for gun control, Biden acknowledge that several members of Congress got bounced out after they supported the 1994 AWB, but said things are different now.

“I’m here to tell you the world has changed since 1994,” Biden said.

But have things changed since 1994?

Well, according to National Rifle Association President David Keene the danger of losing one’s congressional seat over gun control is as clear and as present as it’s ever been.

In an interview with the Associated Press on Thursday, Keene implied that House lawmakers are going to play it coy and watch while those in the Senate shoot themselves in the foot.

“The Senate’s where the action’s going to be,” Keene said. “The House is sort of sitting back, and you can almost hear the House Republican leadership saying under their breath, you know, go ahead. We’ve got a few members that wouldn’t mind sitting in the Senate. If you do this, maybe they will. So the House leadership is much more cautious.”

-

-

SENATE DEMOCRATS MOVE TO PASS DRACONIAN ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATION

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 26, 2013

Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy leads a Senate Judiciary Committee panel to push Obama and Feinstein’s anti-Second Amendment legislation. Photo: Mike Disharoon.

Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee have signaled they are ready to start voting on Obama and Feinstein’s anti-Second Amendment legislation.

Vermont Democrat senator Patrick Leahy, an ardent anti-gun advocate, in his role as committee chairman, said his panel will consider the following:

-Feinstein’s bill outlawing so-called assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds.
-Leahey’s proposal to stiffen penalties for illegal trafficking in firearms and an increase in prison sentences to 30 years for individuals who sell guns they know will be used in crimes.
-Democrat senator Barbara Boxer’s measure to redouble federal funding for an increase in the number of surveillance cameras in schools.

In addition to the above measures, Leahey’s committee will look at legislation to expand background checks for all gun purchases, including private gun sales between individuals. If enacted, Leahey’s legislation will all but shut down gun shows. It will also be used to keep track of all guns in the United States. The proposal currently sits at the top of Obama’s to-do list.

“This so-called background check is aimed at one thing — registering your guns,” the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said over the weekend. “When another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns … Imagine right now your name on a massive government list.”

Democrats, however, will have a difficult time enacting a new round of anti-Second Amendment legislation. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is attempting to reach a compromise with Republican senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on the proposed legislation.

On Sunday Coburn said any attempt to keep records on “legitimate, law-abiding gun owners… will kill this bill.”

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, who is the panel’s top Republican, has announced he will seek to postpone legislative work for a week, a practice that is followed routinely. “It’s just a process of making sure we have plenty of time to study” legislation, Grassley said.

Both Republicans and moderate Democrats oppose Feinstein’s bill and it is given low odds of passage. The California Democrat Feinstein will chair a Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday that will include testimony from victims of the Sandy Hook School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, last December.

“Feinstein has said the public needs to know how gruesome assault weapons wounds can be,” the Associated Press reported on Monday.

-

THE TRUTH ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS AND BACKGROUND CHECKS

By John Lott

Published February 28, 2013

| FoxNews.com

With Senate Judiciary Committee meeting this week, it’s likely that new gun control bills will be drafted very quickly. There are in essence two parts to the bills: the part that deals with the  “assault weapon ban” and the part that deals with “universal background checks.” The first one faces long odds of passage, but the second might well pass.

Democrats will undoubtedly push for an assault weapons ban. The ban has become a central tenant of the Democratic party, with Obama’s calls “to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets” and even Michelle Obama claiming crimes are being committed with “automatic weapons.” Senator Dianne Feinstein is pushing hard to reinstitute the earlier assault weapon ban, which she had originally enacted in 1994.

Proponents of an “Assault Weapons Ban” often argue their point by posing the question: “Why do people need a semiautomatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?”

They obviously imply that the weapon must be a military weapon not designed for hunting. But they are simply plain mistaken. It has just been made to look like a military weapon. The semiautomatic Bushmaster functions identically to a small game hunting rifle. Indeed, the caliber of bullet it fires is too small to be used legally to hunt deer in most states.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun, not a machine gun, like those used in the military. One pull of the trigger releases one bullet. With a machine gun (or automatic), one pull of the trigger releases many bullets.

Generally, people need semi-automatic guns for self-defense. As Vice President Joe Biden’s recent gaffe about recommending people fire two warning shots from a double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun so amply illustrates. The recoil from such a shotgun may be too much for a smaller person. I know of seven cases during just this past December where at least ten shots were fired defensively. They involved instances where 2, 3, or even 4 criminals had broken into people’s homes.

The assault weapon ban also faces one very big obstacle. We have been there, done that. From 1994 to 2004, we banned both so-called assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. The ban was very similar to what is proposed now, with guns banned because they looked like military weapons or had rather arbitrary, cosmetic criteria.

But the ban simply did not do any good.

Despite plenty of studies by criminologists and economists, none of the academic criminologists or economists who have studied this have found any benefits from the law. One of the studies was even funded by the Clinton administration. Yet, this study too concluded: “the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”

Seven years later, in 2004, the authors of that report (Chris Koper and Jeff Roth) published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice together with a fellow criminologist (Dan Woods). Yet again, they could not discern any benefit: “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

The old ban banned semi-automatic guns purely based on their looks or whether they contained two or more features such as bayonet mount, folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher fittings. The new rules list 157 banned guns by name because of their looks and would ban other guns if they have just one of those features.

Yet, these minor differences have already been tried by states such as California and Connecticut, and, again, neither criminologists nor economists have found any benefits from these state level laws either.

What is so maddening here is that the proposals are trying to split semi-automatics into two groups: the “bad” ones and the “good” ones, but there is no sensible criteria used to distinguish the two. While Democrats know that there is absolutely no chance of passing a law that will ban all semi-automatics, they want to appear as if they are “doing something” by trying to ban some of them.

As for the second part of gun control measures, expanded background checks, the likelihood of passage is stronger, but the case for expanded checks is weak. Again, research by others as well as my own keeps failing to find that background checks lower crime rates.

Possibly that isn’t really too surprising. Background checks are just one way of stopping criminals from getting guns and even more extreme methods have failed. Even when guns were banned in Washington and Chicago or even in island nations such as the UK, Ireland and Jamaica, criminals still got guns and murder rates rose after the bans.

To make their case in favor of expanded background checks, impressive numbers have been repeated over and over again. President Obama claims “40% of guns are purchased without a background check” and that background checks have “blocked 1.7 million prohibited individuals from buying a gun.”

Both claims are simply false.

The 40% number is actually 36%, and refers to transfers, not sales. It would only be accurate if family inheritances and gifts were reclassified as “purchases.”

The 36% number was based on a small survey from 1991 to 1994, most of which came before the Brady Act took effect on Feb. 28 1994, with the act introducing the requirement that all federally-licensed dealers perform checks.

Similarly, the supposedly 1.7 million prohibited individuals prevented from buying a gun make no sense whatsoever. What we have is 1.7 million “initial denials.” Again, it is a big difference.

Truth is, these government databases are rife with flaws. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy missed flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? By Obama’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

Hardly.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of those “initial denials” after preliminary reviews. Further review found that at least a fifth of the other 6 percent were also wrongly stopped from buying guns.

The current flaws in the background-check system may be an inconvenience for many, but for some it means dangerous delays. Some people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-spouse or companion will find themselves defenseless.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of these laws can cost lives. Talking about only the benefits of more laws and not their costs isn’t going to make anyone safer.

-

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK, REGISTRATION AND CONFISCATION

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 5, 2013

Oklahoma Republic senator Tom Coburn knows that if a universal background check system is implemented it will eventually lead to registration of all firearms in the United States. Coburn is the main hurdle posited between Obama, his allies in Congress and the Democrat dream of America stripped of its historical right to own firearms.

-

-

In response to this snag, Obama has focused his attention on Coburn. According to The Hill, the president has so far called Coburn twice, but the senator has declined to provide details on the conversations.

Democrat Senator Charles Schumer – known as one the most fearsome opponents of Second Amendment rights in Congress – and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin are attempting to sidestep Coburn and have turned their attention to Illinois Republican Mark Kirk.

“Sen. Kirk is committed to finding a workable solution that gets a bipartisan bill,” Kirk’s spokesman Lance Trover said, The Hill reports. “The senator believes there is a workable solution for all sides.”

Democrats and “centrist” Republicans have reached a deal on providing law enforcement officialdom with the authority to prosecute gun trafficking and so-called straw purchases. The agreement signals the start of bipartisan negotiations that may ultimately result in passage of the centerpiece of Obama’s anti-firearms legislation – universal background checks by government bureaucrats.

Schumer has characterized government background checks as the “sweet spot” of the anti-Second Amendment agenda now rolling through Congress.

“It’s the fundamental building block of any serious gun violence prevention system,” Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told the newspaper.

Time is of the essence for government gun-grabbers. On Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, plans to markup a number of anti-Second Amendment bills. Leahy delayed the process a week to give Schumer and Coburn time to negotiate. If they fail to reach an agreement by the end of markup, it may be difficult to move the universal background check legislation to the Senate floor for a vote.

Firearms registration invariably leads to confiscation

The term universal background check (UBC) is “nothing more than a euphemism for firearms and human registration,” the website AmmoLand.com explains. “The fact is we should be very fearful of this. We are talking not only about government having a record of everyone who owns guns (and WHICH guns), but of their creating a national data base of human beings with every aspect of your life included.”

Should a UBC be enacted either by people’s complacence, or firearm companies’ compliance, we will become the most surveilled society the world has ever seen. This effort will follow the same dangerous path that Hitler put into place, but will surpass it.

This type of legislation will lead to registration, which will be used for confiscation. An unarmed society is then at the mercy of those in power. If we learn from history, we know only one more inevitability can follow – extermination.

-

DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS AND NRA WORK TOGETHER ON GUN CONFISCATION

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 12, 2013

Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapon ban now appears to be a little more than decoy sent out to be shot down while the real work on gun control legislation is hammered out by Democrats, Republicans and the NRA behind closed doors.

-

-

According to sources cited by Ammoland.com, the “NRA is cutting back room deals to centralize gun owner data collection into the Obama/Holder massive government data base.” Republicans are working with Democrats to pass legislation that will require records be kept on all gun sales and also move to streamline and improve the database.

“Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor is leading the charge to give Obama and Holder what they want in exchange for appearing to be ‘fixing’ the problem of innocent children being butchered in our public and private schools,” the website reports.

The collusion reaches all the way to the top of the Republican party. “Newly appointed Republican Judiciary Chairman, Bob Goodlatte R-VA 6th District, is providing political cover for the sneaky back room gun control deals and gun grabbing sell outs that his political masters - – John Boehner and Eric Cantor – are cutting [deals] with Obama and his corrupt Attorney General, Eric Holder.”

Goodlette is also colluding with Virginia Republican Congressman Scott Rigell on his House version of Vermont Senator Pat Leahy’s S. 443, titled “The Forced Gun Owner Registration Act” by Ammoland.com.

If Leahey’s bill is enacted, Republicans and the NRA will claim they saved the Second Amendment by preventing Feinstein’s gun-grabbing bill from clearing the Senate.

At the same time, the establishment media has rolled out a number of public survey polls claiming Americans overwhelmingly approve of registering nearly all firearms under a universal background check scheme.

Bipartisan negotiations hit a snag in the Senate due to demands by Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn, who opposes record keeping aspects of the Democrat assault on the Second Amendment.

“Coburn got hung up on record keeping. Under the bill, all guns sold at gun shows would require a background check, and the seller would keep a record of the sale — just as federally-licensed retailers do now,” the Chicago Tribune reported on Sunday.

The newspaper said if Coburn’s version of the legislation is enacted, private sales between individuals “would not be turned over to the government. It would not become part of a national database. It would not lead to mass gun confiscation.”

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “ideal approach” proposal to broaden background check requirements for all gun sales in the United States, including measures Coburn opposed. The vote went straight down partisan lines, as expected.

Passing the measure out of the committee indicates a potential compromise between Democrats and Republicans and signals that the bill stands a good chance of getting the 60 votes required to pass in the Senate.

Last week bipartisan negotiations fizzled as Coburn stuck to his guns on record keeping and the prospect of a massive expansion of a database that will ultimately be used by the Justice Department when the government decides to conduct a national confiscation of firearms similar to past confiscations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain.

Democrats will now try to marginalize Coburn and find a Republican “partner” to collude with them against the Second Amendment.

-

OBAMA SUPPORTS FEINSTEIN’S ROLL BACK OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

-

TURN THEM OVER: FEINSTEIN MOVES TO BAN ALL ASSAULT RIFLES, HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES, AND PISTOL GRIPS

Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com

November 7th, 2012

The agenda no longer needs to be hidden from public view. With President Obama winning another term and democrats taking control of the Senate, the move to fundamentally change America from within has begun – with a vengeance.We’re all aware of the restrictive gun laws in the State of California which require low capacity magazines for handguns, fixed magazines for “assault” rifles, and a whole lot of running around just to be granted the right to carry a concealed firearm.Now, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who has championed gun control in her state for decades and co-wrote the original assault weapons ban enacted by the federal government in the 1990′s, wishes to bring even more stringent federal mandates to the land of the free.What is being proposed by Feinstein is the most significant attack on the second amendment in history.

It would essentially ban thousands of firearms and require gun owners to turn them over to the Federal government.

I don’t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection.This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a banwould ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”.

I don’t know about you, but if these things come to pass and I’m “in possession” I’m certainly not selling.In fact, the lack of interest in the idea surprised the California liberal’s legal staffers. Apparently, they believe no logical person could possible disagree with them.…I began receiving the first reports of increases in gun buying by people concerned about tomorrow’s election. Dealers in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Indiana all tell me there hasn’t been a huge number of buyers expressing those concerns, but the numbers were noticeable.Among that group -and the majority of “regular” purchasers- the core driving most of the purchasing seem to be in their mid-to-late 30s. Again, home and personal defense are the most frequently cited reasons for buying. Source: Shooting Wire

At a Congressional budget meeting in September of this year, Feinstein alluded to her desire to reintroduce federal assault weapons ban regulations similar to those she helped cosponsor and pass in 1994 during the Presidency of Bill Clinton:

“Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to say, once again, in legislation, weapons of war do not belong on our streets…”
September 5, 2012

Is it any wonder that shares of stocks like Smith & Wesson and Ruger surged this morning in response to President Obama winning a second term? While the majority of stocks across the world are in the midst of a sell-off and economic conditions indicate the country is in a recession, America’s gun owners aren’t waiting to see what happens next.Senator Feinstein is serious, and despite this most recent report appearing only as a rumor, her comments earlier this year and her actions two decades ago, should leave no question as to where this is headed.They are coming for our guns; plain and simple.

-

SENATOR FEINSTEIN LOOKING TO INTRODUCE NEW ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

A few days before Barack Obama‘s reelection on Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) began getting ready to introduce legislation to bring back the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.Quoting The Shooting Wire, Mac Slavo reported on Wednesday:

I don’t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection.This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”.

The law “would essentially ban thousands of firearms and require gun owners to turn them over to the Federal government,” Slavo writes.With Obama, who supports the ban, in the White House for another term and the Democrats fully in control of the Senate, Feinstein will most likely be able to introduce the legislation.

If any trouble is encountered in the Republican-held House of Representatives, then gun control advocates should fear not, as Obama would most likely issue an executive order to get around it as he’s done in the past when he doesn’t get his way. After all, “we can’t wait,” the dictator needs to erode our rights now.

As has been reported, so-called assault weapons are used in a very minute percentage of crime, being used in only about one percent of gun crimes and 0.20 percent of all violent crime, and the ban in no way affected violent crime while it was law.A related issue also came up almost immediately after Obama’s reelection.

Not even 24 hours after winning, the administration issued support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which would implement a de facto global gun registry. According to PR Newswire, the administration joined with “China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate” on the treaty.

Obama previously supported the treaty, but backed out over the summer due to fear of losing the then-upcoming election, causing it to fail to pass and fizzle out of discussion at the time. Now that he no longer has to worry about reelection, he can implement the treaty without repercussion.Gun sales have surged over the past four years due to fears that the Obama administration would implement gun control. Following his reelection, firearm stocks soared on Wednesday, even while the Dow Jones intraday dropped by 2.23 percent.

-

FEINSTEIN ROLLS OUT DRACONIAN ATTACK ON SECOND AMENDMENT

-

-

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 24, 2013

Senator Dianne Feinstein unveiled her promised attack against the Second Amendment Thursday on Capitol Hill. The legislation she has proposed following the Sandy Hook massacre last month will reinstate and significantly extend the federal ban on so-called assault weapons that expired in 2004.

“The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time,” Feinstein said. “Therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.”

Obama has vowed to sign Feinstein’s legislation if it clears significant hurdles in Congress.

Feinstein assembled an all-star cast to call for unconstitutionally rolling back the gun rights of millions of Americans. Those in attendance included senators Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. The California lawmaker surrounded herself with “law enforcement officers, faith leaders, mayors, gun control advocates and other Democratic supporters of the bill,” according to Roll Call.

Others in attendance for their obvious theatrical value included survivors of mass shootings in Arizona, Colorado and at Virginia Tech, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Charles H. Ramsey, Philadelphia Police Commissioner, the Washington Post reports.

A number of Democrats not attending the media event, however, have vowed to fight the legislation.

On the chopping block are 158 specific kinds of semiautomatic firearms listed by name (see the entire list here) and others – including handguns and shotguns – with at least one specific military characteristic. In addition, the legislation will outlaw all ammunition magazines that contain more than 10 rounds.

More draconian yet, the proposed legislation will target millions of so-called assault weapons already in the hands of Americans by subjecting owners to government background checks.

A number of states reacted to Obama’s call to rollback the Second Amendment and his pledge to back anti-gun legislation introduced by Democrats in Congress.

On Wednesday, Texas freshman Rep. Steve Stockman introduced his Restore the Constitution Act in response to Obama signing a flurry of unconstitutional executive orders and actions following his anti-firearms speech last week.

Stockman’s bill would designate any executive action to be advisory only if it infringes on the constitutional duties of Congress under Article I, or the Second Amendment.

Texas, Missouri and other states have introduced legislation to block enforcement of the gun ban.

Texas Rep. John Otto (R-Dayton) filed HB553 soon after Obama’s theatrical speech exploiting children as stage props.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any state or federal official to “enforce or attempt to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.”

-

FEINSTEIN’S GUN DISPLAY BREAKS D.C. GUN LAWS

€€

-

FEINSTEIN INTRODUCES THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 25, 2013

Senator Dianne Feinstein had Reverend Gary Hall, dean of the National Cathedral, preside over her press conference this week to lobby against 2nd Amendment rights and promote gun control. Hall said: “Now, everyone in this city seems to live in terror of the gun lobby. But I believe the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby.”

Hall invoked the Christian evangelicals to rally for federal gun control because he could no longer justify a society that allowed ordinary citizens to keep and bear “assault weapons”. He then asked God to “bless our elected leaders with the wisdom and the courage needed to bring about the changes that the people demand.”

On a federal level, Senator Dianne Feinstein has “been working with my staff for over a year on legislation” based on “in-depth research” into gun-related violence; such as viewing pictures of guns from 1993 to 2012 to make comparisons.

The NRA says they have obtained a draft of Feinstein’s bill that seeks to redefine what is an “assault weapon” to include a more encompassing amount of guns. There would also be an initiative of forcing Americans to register their guns with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This would give the federal government authority to confiscate weapons that were identified in violent acts.
Feinstein hopes to:

• Restrict the modifications to firearms available to citizens
• Classify specific modifications as illegal
• Restricting the acquisition of rocket launchers

With the redefining of assault weapons, semi-automatic, centerfire, rimfire rifles will be illegal; as well as the M1 Carbine and Ruger Mini-14. No more than 10 round magazines will be available.

The NFA will collect taxes of an estimated $200 per gun purchased as well as the owner file their fingerprints, photograph, address and obtain permission before taking the gun across state lines.

Guns could not be sold privately or passed down to heirs. The owner would relinquish their gun to the US government upon death.

Feinstein said just after the Sandy Hook shooting that “the president will soon have legislation ‘to lead on’ in the gun control debate.” Feinstein is heading the march against the 2nd Amendment with the introduction of a bill into Congress in January of 2013. This document is just now being drafted with a proposal for the US House of Representatives.

Feinstein explains the bill “will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. There will be a bill.”

In an interview this week, Feinstein remarked that she has worked on this for a long time. I’m not a newcomer or a novice to guns. The NRA sort of specialized in trying to denigrate me, but I don’t think there’s anyone around that’s spent 20 years on this subject, plus some.”

There are 150 types of guns on Feinstein’s “list” that should be banned; including most types of rifles pistols and shotguns.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (as it is being called) prohibits the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of those firearms listed in the bill.

By describing semiautomatic guns as “dangerous military-style assault weapons”, Feinstein made her stance clear. She stated: “Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that — but it’s a battle worth having.”

The point of this legislation is to “dry up the supply of these weapons over time. Therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.”

Feinstein went on to say that the “massacres don’t seem to stop” – referencing recent tragedies such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Batman shooting and Sandy Hook. She continued: “We should be outraged at how easy it is” for people to obtain guns.

Jay Carney, press secretary for the White House, said that it is his understanding that the 2nd Amendment should be perceived in the sense that “we ought to be able to take common-sense measures to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country and to increase the amount of security for our people, most especially our children.”

President Obama called upon Congress to pass over-reaching gun restrictions through legislation beyond the 23 executive orders and presidential memorandums he signed last week.

While Vice President Joe Biden along with White House officials descend on Richmond, Virginia to lobby for support for Obama’s gun grab, Feinstein will push legislation before Congress.

Patrick Leahy, Judiciary chairman, said that gun control talks will begin next week. Leahy will be focusing on multiple areas of gun reform, giving federal and local police access to comprehensive databases for criminal background checks and ban high-capacity magazines.

-

DIANNE FEINSTEIN DECLARES WAR ON BILL OF RIGHTS, CALLS FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS TO BE DISARMED OR REGISTERED

Mike Adams
Natural News
Jan 25, 2013

US Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced her highly-anticipated gun disarmament legislation yesterday, throwing her hat in the ring as an outright traitor to the United States Constitution and a dangerous tyrant who seeks to hand the federal government a firearms monopoly. The bill would criminalize nearly all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns while calling fornationwide gun registration of all existing firearms. It would also criminalize citizens buying ammo magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, even while the government can purchase ammo magazines of unlimited capacity.

This is red alert time for all Americans who seek to save this nation from falling into the hands of outright tyrants.

How does the federal government plan to enforce these new gun control laws, if passed? Using GUNS, of course! The threat of force is what’s used to gain your “compliance” with everything the government does.

As you can easily see, America is under attack from within. Its domestic enemies are now abundantly clear: All those who are actively working against the Second Amendment of the US Bill of Rights are, by definition, enemies of America and subject to arrest and prosecution. Natural News calls for a “line in the sand” defense of our natural-born rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun prohibition doomed to fail

Feinstein’s gun disarmament legislation, if passed, would launch a new era of “gun prohibition” with all the same failures, financial costs and ethical lapses as the war on drugs, or the war on alcohol during the prohibition of the 1920′s. Even though nearly everyone on the political left recognizes the total failure of marijuana prohibition and alcohol prohibition, many now suddenly believe that gun prohibition will somehow be pulled off without a hitch.

They are wrong. If this policy of Feinstein is pursued, it will drive America into a bloody civil war costing potentially millions of innocent lives. It will turn America’s streets into combat zones, pitting patriotic, freedom-loving Americans against a tyrannical, oppressive, unconstitutional government run by criminals and thugs.

Then again, that might be Feinstein’s plan all along. A civil war would be the perfect excuse to have Obama declare martial law, suspend all elections, and erect a soviet-style police state that suffocates any hope of freedom and liberty.

Gun registration is phase one of a much larger plan for total disarmament of US citizen

Gun registration is only the first step in Feinstein’s grand scheme, of course. Following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler, another famous gun grabber from the pages of history, Feinstein’s actual plan is as follows:

Step 1) Mandate nationwide registration of all firearms, but lie to the people and tell them they can keep their guns as long as they are registered.

Step 2) Stage another mass shooting, then invoke more fake tears on television while demanding that all guns must now be turned in “for the children.” And besides, we already have the database of all gun owners, so we know where the guns are!

Step 3) The initial calls for gun control will only target semi-automatic firearms, but with each additional staged shooting, the call will go out for even more guns to be confiscated: Bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns, and at some point even black powder rifles.

Step 4) Once the population is entirely disarmed and unable to resist, power-hungry people like Feinstein will engage in a full roll-out of total government domination as we’ve seen time and time again throughout history. Those who resist will be shot. Those populations that are “undesirable” will be “cleansed.”

This plan is now readily apparent and obvious to anyone who has studied history. Feinstein, Obama, Schumer and others are fundamentally no different from Hitler, Stalin and Mao. They all are power-hungry tyrants who crave total control over a disarmed population. While they may speak the language of “safety” and democracy, in their hearts they feed off the quest for total power at any cost.

Why this is our absolute line in the sand

The Bill of Rights is what has made America uniquely capable of fending off tyranny and maintaining some semblance of balance between the People and the government. The Second Amendment is the one right that protects all other rights. Without it, there would be no First Amendment, no due process, no right to remain silent, and no freedom whatsoever.

Every government inherently seeks to become a tyrannical dictatorship — it is the natural expansion of power reflected in the desires of nearly all men and women. Our Founding Fathers understood this tendency for nations to slide into tyranny, and they designed a system of separation of powers as well as checks and balances to function as firewalls against runaway oppression.

The Bill of Rights is a critical firewall that prevents the federal government from crossing the line into tyranny. Each right described in the Bill of Rights is an immutable, permanent right that cannot be revoked, nullified or infringed. Any person who attempts to actively overturn one of these sacred rights is deliberately functioning as an enemy of America and a traitor to the People.

If the Second Amendment is lost, soon after you will lose all the following:

• Your right to grow food in your home garden.
• Your right to seek out holistic and alternative medicine.
• Your right to blog about non-conformist subjects.
• Your right to own private property.
• Your right to say NO to vaccines.
• Your right to have as many children as you want.
• Your right to vote in an honest election.
• Your right to express your opinion and speak your mind.
• Your right to home school your children.
• Your right to own supplies of stored food, ammo or precious metals.
• Your right to practice self defense in your own home or community.

All of these rights are now threatened by the dark cloud of evil that has descended upon this country thanks to absolutely wicked manipulators like Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden.

If you do not take a stand for your right to bear arms, you will lose ALL your rights and freedoms in the very near future. This is a “do or die” moment for America.

Trusting government to protect you is a fatal error

Do not be fooled by the irrational emotional appeals for gun control as voiced by manipulative politicians. They do not care about the Sandy Hook children. What they care about is using the dead children to pursue their insidious agendas of concentrating power into their own hands.

An armed citizenry scares Dianne Feinstein, and it should! “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” said Thomas Jefferson. And he’s right. He goes on to say:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

What Dianne Feinstein and all the other gun grabbers are trying to convince you to believe is that your neighbor is a threat to your safety, but your government is your protector. History has shown the exact opposite to be true: Your neighbor is your protector. Your government is a caged beast to be restricted in scope and vigorously denied the resources to expand its reach. Because once government crosses a threshold of power, it rapidly escalates its dominion over the population, quickly usurping all power and systematically destroying any who oppose it.

This is the single most important lesson of history, and it is a lesson that most of today’s youth has never learned, and most of today’s elders have already forgotten. If we do not awaken to the truth of this lesson right now, America will fall to the ruling elite, and all those who stood for liberty will be eliminated. (Followed soon thereafter by everyone else considered a “useless eater.”)

Gun control is more about CONTROL than about GUNS

Dianne Feinstein, you see, isn’t merely trying to take away your gun… she’s trying to take away your power. A firearm is actually the power to say “No!” to government. That’s why firearms scare government so much, and it’s why they systematically stage mass shooting events in order to evoke a nationwide call for guns to be criminalized, registered and eventually confiscated.

Firearms are the great democratic equalizers of society. When guns are widely distributed across the population, they serve as a powerful deterrent to governments that intend to become tyrannies. “Any government that does not trust its citizens with firearms,” wrote Joseph P. Martino in the book Resistance to Tyranny, “is either already a tyranny, or planning to become one.”

You have to ask yourself this question, and I’m going to put it here in bold:

What is the U.S. government planning that requires it to first disarm the American people?

Disarmament, you see, is only the first step to something far larger and far more insidious.

Action items: Three things you can do RIGHT NOW to protect your liberties and the Bill of Rights

Step 1) Call your US Senator and voice your strong opposition to the Feinstein gun control bill. Call the capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Step 2) Call your state representatives and strongly urge them to introduce or support the Firearms Protection Act in your state.

Step 3) Call your local county Sheriff and urge him or her to announce their opposition to unconstitutional gun grabs in your county. Search online for their phone number.

If you will do these three things, you can make a measurable impact on this issue. Remember: This isn’t about guns as much as it’s about protecting your Bill of Rights freedoms and liberties. If the Bill of Rights is gutted by politicians in Washington, there’s nothing they won’t steal from you. That’s why this is where we draw the line in the sand and say NO!

Where to get more news from the firearms industry

http://www.TheGunMag.com
http://www.AmmoLand.com
http://www.TheGunWire.com
http://www.TheOutdoorWire.com

Organizations that are fighting to defend your freedoms on this issue

Gun Owners of America
GOA.org

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.JPFO.org

Project Veritas
http://www.TheProjectVeritas.org

National Association for Gun Rights
http://www.NationalGunRights.org

Second Amendment Foundation
SAF.org

Firearms Coalition
http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org

-

-

FEINSTEIN CALLS FOR BANNING MORE THAN 150 TYPES OF FIREARMS DURING DRAMATIC PRESS CONFERENCE

Alex Pappas Political Reporter | The Daily Caller

WASHINGTON — California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein staged a dramatic press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill with 10 weapons at her side and unveiled legislation instituting a government ban on more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Flanked by other anti-gun liberal lawmakers, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, Feinstein announced the introduction of the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

The legislation being pushed by Feinstein — who has long history of calling for gun bans — would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.

During the press event at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Democrats described these firearms as “dangerous military-style assault weapons.” The bill would also ban high-capacity ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Feinstein said the country’s “weak” gun laws allow massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occur.

“Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that — but it’s a battle worth having,” Feinstein said in literature handed to reporters at the Thursday event.

Others who joined the Democrats for the press conference included Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Washington National Cathedral dean Gary R. Hall.

This sort of stunt from Feinstein — displaying weapons for dramatic effect while discussing new gun laws — is hardly new. Joe Morrissey, a Democratic delegate in Virginia, caught some colleagues by surprise last week by bringing an AK-47 onto the floor of the House of Delegates while calling for Gun Control.

And David Gregory, the moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” found himself in hot water for displaying a high-capacity gun magazine during an interview with a leader of the National Rifle Association in December. NBC studios are in Washington D.C., where having possession of such magazines is illegal. While DC police investigated the incident, no charges were filed.

-

LIST OF FIREARMS BANNED BY NAME

-

-

DIANNE FEINSTEIN DECLARES WAR ON GUNOWNERS

-

Senator Dianne Feinstein said just after the Sandy Hook shooting that “the president will soon have legislation ‘to lead on’ in the gun control debate.” Feinstein is heading the march against the 2nd Amendment with the introduction of a bill into Congress in January of 2013. This document is just now being drafted with a proposal for the US House of Representatives.

Feinstein explains the bill “will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. There will be a bill.”

-

-

-

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons

Stay informed

In January 2013, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

To receive updates on this legislation, click here.

Press releases

• Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012
• Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting, December 14, 2012

Television appearances

• Press conference, Dec. 21, 2012
• CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Nov. 17, 2012
• PBS NewsHour with Gwen Ifill, Nov. 17, 2012
• MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, Nov. 17, 2012
• CBS’s Meet the Press with David Gregory, Nov. 16, 2012

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  • 120 specifically-named firearms;
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

Effectiveness of 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban

Following are studies that have been conducted on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban:

• In a Department of Justice study (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
  • Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997).
• In a University of Pennsylvania study (pdf), Christopher Koper reports that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
  • Original source (page 46): Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004).
• In a Washington Post story, reporters David Fallis and James Grimaldi write that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia with high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the Assault Weapons Ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
  • Original source: In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise. By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post.
• In a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Public Health (pdf), Douglas Weil and Rebecca Knox explain that when Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55 percent drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
  • Original source (pages 297-298): Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, “Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore,” 87 American Journal of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997, at 297-98.
• A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.
  • Original source (pages 6-7): Violence Policy Center, “Target: Law Enforcement—Assault Weapons in the News,” (Feb. 2010).
• A report by the Police Executive Research Forum finds that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
  • Original source (page 2): Police Executive Research Forum, “Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact,” (May 2010).

Assault weapons in the news

• “A Tougher Assault Weapons Ban” (New York Times, Dec. 28, 2012)
• “NRA misleads on assault weapons” (Salon, Dec. 26, 2012)
• “Dems to push for more sweeping assault weapons ban” (Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2012)
• “A conservative case for an assault weapons ban” (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, 2012)
• “Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control” (New York Times, Dec. 19, 2012)
• “Trying, again, to ban assault weapons” (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
• “Stop the sale of assault weapons” (San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 17, 2012)

-

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN STILL OWN ASSAULT WEAPONS UNDER FEINSTEIN BILL

By Ashley Portero | International Business Times

Not everyone is exempted from owning military-style assault weapons under new legislation proposed by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Weapons used by government officials and law enforcement will not be prohibited by the law proposed by the California Democrat, which would prohibit the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named semi-automatic weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Any weapons legally owned before the bill’s enactment would also be exempt, although those firearms would have to be registered in a national database.

In addition, more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles and manually operated firearms would also be exempt.

The ambitious measure seeks to reinstate and expand the federal ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. While gun control restrictions — typically extremely unpopular — have floundered in Congress in recent years, there has been a renewed push for tighter regulations in the wake of last month’s elementary school shootings in Newtown, Conn.

But gun rights activists, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), have vowed to oppose any legislative action that could increase regulations on firearm ownership, claiming it is an undeniable violation of the Second Amendment.

“Senator Feinstein has been trying to ban guns from law-abiding citizens for decades,” the gun lobby said in a statement. “The American people know gun bans do not work, and we are confident Congress will reject Senator Feinstein’s wrong-headed approach.”

Some tea-party affiliated conservatives have alleged the Obama administration is attempting to strip citizens of their weapons in a move that has constantly been compared to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi takeover of Germany. Pro-gun extremists, such as NRA board member Ted Nugent, have recently stated that any additional gun laws are the first step toward all-out confiscation, an event the conservative blogosphere argues could potentially lead to the rise of a totalitarian state. The exemption of government officials and law enforcement from the Feinstein bill may encourage that line of thinking.

Nugent, for his part, recently told the conservative World Net Daily that gun owners should model their resistance on the 1960s civil rights movement.

“There will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks, and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed,” Nugent said, comparing gun owners to the civil rights hero.

-

ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN LACKS DEMOCRATIC VOTES TO PASS SENATE

By Heidi Przybyla and Julie Hirschfeld Davis – Bloomberg

A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate unless some lawmakers changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.

At least six of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus have expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.

A ban on the military-style weapons is among the legislative goals President Barack Obama outlined in his recommendations to Congress on curbing gun violence after the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut. Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday it will take “persuasion and information” to gain the necessary support to enact the White House package.

“We have an obligation to act — not wait,” Biden told reporters after a more than two-hour roundtable at Virginia Commonwealth University to discuss the administration’s push for new gun-safety measures.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California unveiled on Jan. 24 legislation to outlaw sales of assault-style weapons during a news briefing where shooting survivors, some of them with bullets still lodged in their bodies, urged its passage.

‘Uphill’ Battle

At that event, Feinstein said it’s unclear whether the fight is winnable. “We don’t know, it’s so uphill,” she said. “It depends on the courage of Americans.”

New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy, who lost her husband in a 1993 shooting on a Long Island Rail Road train, said recent events have spurred a fresh start on the issue.

“We’re only at the beginning of our nation’s conversation about gun violence,” McCarthy said by e-mail. “There’s no way to know where the American people’s anger and frustration with” the Connecticut shooting “will ultimately take lawmakers.”

The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.

Biden Comments

In his comments yesterday, Biden made no mention of an assault weapons ban, and on Jan. 24 he downplayed its importance.

“I’m much less concerned, quite frankly, about what you call an assault weapon ban than I am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine,” Biden said.

The 1994 assault weapons ban, signed by President Bill Clinton, expired in 2004 and, until the shooting in Newtown, there’s been little effort in Congress to restore it.

The new legislation prohibits the sale or transfer of 158 of the most commonly owned military-style assault weapons. It would exempt all such guns legally possessed before passage of the law and exclude more than 2,200 hunting and sporting rifles.

Baucus, in a Jan. 16 statement, said that “before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of a one-size-fits-all directive from Washington.”

Complicated Problem

“The answer isn’t simply in limiting guns,” said Andrea Helling, a spokeswoman for Tester. The senator also told a newspaper in Missoula, Montana, that an assault weapons ban wouldn’t have stopped the shootings in Newtown.

Begich said he was “not interested” in a ban, during a Jan. 10 conference call with reporters. “I don’t believe that we need to pile on new laws and suddenly that solves all the problems,” he said.

Manchin told CNN on Jan. 13 that “an assault weapons stand-alone ban on just guns alone will not, in the political reality that we have today, will not go anywhere.”

Heitkamp, referring to the Connecticut shooting, told North Dakota’s KXMB-TV and KXMC-TV on Jan. 15 that “there isn’t any amount of gun regulation or gun executive orders that will solve the problem of identifying people who could potentially do this and making sure they get the help and their families get the help so they don’t do this.”

Scott Ogden, a spokesman for King, said the senator “remains skeptical” about an assault weapons ban, though he was waiting for more details.

Collins Concern

Collins is concerned that the proposed legislation is “far broader in the kinds of rifles that would be banned than was the case in the law in effect between 1994 and 2004,” said her spokesman, Kevin Kelley.

Further dimming prospects for the assault weapon ban, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, both Democrats, voted against extending the previous ban in 2004. Neither has made any public statements since Newtown indicating a change in their positions.

Feinstein will be relying on survivor testimonials, along with images of the slain Sandy Hook students, most of them 6- year-olds, to push these Democrats to reconsider their opposition.

“The message to Democrats is, ‘See what your silence does?’” Feinstein told reporters. “There will be more of these. These won’t end.”

“If just reading the list of beautiful names and looking into the eyes of some of the pictures of the children slain doesn’t do something to the conscience of America, nothing I can say or do will,” she said.

Capacity Issue

The vote shortage for a ban may prompt Democrats to focus on another major goal that is also part of the Feinstein bill: banning high-capacity magazines that have been used in many of the U.S. shootings over the past decade to fire off numerous bullets in a matter of seconds from autoloading guns.

Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, introduced separate legislation on Jan. 22 to ban the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

In the Tucson, Arizona, shooting two years ago that severely injured former Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, Jared Lee Loughner fired 31 bullets in 15 seconds from a Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol. He was tackled while reloading. An assault rifle with a 100-round magazine was among the weapons alleged gunman James Holmes used to kill 12 and wound 58 in July 2012 at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater.

Hearing Set

Mark Kelly, Giffords’s husband and a gun-control advocate, will testify at a Jan. 30 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, the panel’s chairman, announced yesterday. Kelly will be joined by witnesses including Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, which opposes new restrictions.

Some of the lawmakers skeptical of the assault-weapons ban did express support for a prohibition on high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, as well increased background checks for firearm purchases.

“Congress must act to implement magazine capacity restrictions,” King spokesman Ogden said in a statement.

King is also “generally supportive of expanded background checks,” Ogden said.

Collins “supports a reasonable limitation on the number of rounds of ammunition in a magazine,” spokesman Kelley said.

Political Pressure

Biden, who Obama tapped to develop recommendations for action after the Connecticut shooting, said there would be more trips outside of Washington to discuss the issue. Yesterday, he called the Newtown massacre “a national tragedy and a window into a vulnerability people feel about their safety and the safety of their children.”

The White House’s campaign-style effort is designed to build political pressure on Congress to take action.

“I have no illusions about what needs to be done and how difficult it will be,” Biden said in an e-mail sent yesterday to Obama supporters. “Each one of us needs to speak up and demand action,” he wrote, concluding: “Let’s get this done.”

The private roundtable Biden conducted in Virginia included cabinet officials, Democratic lawmakers, and members of the state-appointed review board that investigated the 2007 shooting that killed 33 people at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, known as Virginia Tech, in the deadliest gun massacre in U.S. history.

That incident prompted passage of a 2008 law improving state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, aimed at barring criminals or mentally ill individuals from obtaining guns.

Mental Health

Biden said the group discussed the need for strengthening that system and implementing universal background checks with better and timelier information from states. He said they also talked about the “woefully inadequate” number of trained mental-health professionals available around the country.

Manchin told a West Virginia radio interviewer Jan. 24 that he is working with senators of both parties to require most gun purchasers, including those at weapons shows, to undergo checks.

“If you’re going to be a gun owner, you should have a background check and be able to pass a background check,” he said. Exceptions should be made in cases where a gun is transferred from one family member to another, and when a weapon is being obtained for use at a sporting event.

Manchin said private sellers at gun shows have an “unfair advantage” because they don’t have to perform background checks while a licensed dealer does.

-

HOW THE POST-SANDY HOOK GUN CONTROL PUSH SPECTACULARLY BACKFIRED IN AMERICA

Mike Adams
Natural News
Feb 6, 2013

In the aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, the gun grabbers across America unleashed a full court press to try to wholly disarm American citizens. With the help of the incessantly anti-gun mainstream media, people like Biden, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Feinstein and Obama managed to stir up a frenzy of fabricated fear that promised all our children would be violently gunned down if we didn’t immediately agree to turn in all our guns and ammo magazines.

The push for gun control, however, has spectacularly backfired. In reality, it has hardened the positions of gun rights advocates while massively increasing the number of AR-15s and other firearms sold across the country.

The backfire is far worse than the gun grabbers could have possibly imagined when they launched their efforts on the graves of the dead Sandy Hook children. Here’s my analysis of what has factually happened on the gun control front since Sandy Hook.

Analysis of ways in which the gun grab backfired

• Instead of reducing sales of AR-15s and other firearms in America, the gun grab dramatically increased sales of nearly all firearms beyond any previous record. In essence, the American people bought nearly every gun available anywhere in the country, leaving gun store shelves empty. The upshot of all this? 10+ million new firearms in the hands of citizens and a one-year backlog of gun orders with manufacturers.

• Instead of shrinking the influence of the NRA, the gun grab vastly expanded NRA membership. More than 300,000 new members have been added to the NRA’s roster in just the last few months, and the association has become more steeled in its position than ever before. The NRA has shifted even more dramatically against gun restrictions than ever before, even reversing itself on the issue of “gun free school zones” after learning that such zones don’t work. Gun Owners of America has also seen its membership numbers soar.

• The backlash against Obama, Biden, Piers Morgan and others has been so powerful and persistent that Obama had to stage a photo op of himself shooting a shotgun in order to create the impression that he was “pro gun.” Similarly, anti-gun CNN host Piers Morgan has now broadcast a video of himself shooting an AR-15 in Katy, Texas, while softening his position and saying he was never against the Second Amendment in the first place. (Yeah, right…)

How big of a deal is all this? It’s huge! Imagine Piers Morgan picking up an AR-15 the day after the Sandy Hook shooting. Never would have happened, right? Or imagine Obama allowing himself to be photographed shooting a shotgun. These images would have been unimaginable mere weeks ago, but the gun grab push has backfired so completely that even the Second Amendment’s most outspoken critics are practically lining up to be photographed or filmed shooting guns.

• Instead of silencing all the gun advocates and owners across the nation, the effort has actually caused people to break their silence on the issue and go vocal with their true beliefs on the topic. I’m a perfect example of this: before Sandy Hook, I hardly ever mentioned firearms. After Sandy Hook, I’ve been one of the most outspoken voices of gun rights and the Second Amendment, and I’ve actually found that instead of losing an audience, I’ve gained a huge number of new subscribers who agree with me on this issue. Check the Alexa stats; Natural News is steadily gaining in web traffic even as we cover this issue.

Other people have done much the same thing. My friend Daniel Vitalis, best known for longevity supplements and preparedness know-how, has even gone public with his own pro-gun column, and the feedback from his health-oriented audience has been mostly positive.

• The emotionally-loaded “Demand A Plan” Hollywood video, featuring dozens of top stars trying to convince us we need to disarm ourselves, was very quickly turned into a laughing stock due to the release of far more informative video showing most of those stars using guns to commit bloody murder on the big screen. The hypocrisy was inescapable: Hollywood people want to claim they are against guns, but much of their income is based on movies that feature horrific scenes of violent shootings.

• While the gun grabbers wanted sheriffs and cops to jump on board the gun disarmament bandwagon, what actually happened is that sheriffs began speaking out AGAINST gun control and encouraging their local constituents to arm themselves. Sheriffs across the country — in huge numbers — publicly proclaimed they would not allow federal agents to enforce gun restrictionsin their counties.

• While gun grabbers wanted states to fall in line and surrender to federal authority on the issue of gun control, what actually happened is that the Firearms Protection Act began to be introduced in state legislatures such as Wyoming and Texas. This act, which is now being considered in more than a dozen other states, would make it a felony crime for anyone to enforce new federal gun restrictions in their states.

• While gun grabbers hoped the U.S. military would agree to fire upon American citizens who refused to turn in their guns, what really happened is that huge numbers of active duty soldiers announced they would never participate in military action against their own countrymen. In fact, inside the military there is rising talk of shooting commanding officers in the head if they order troops to fire on American citizens over gun rights issues.

• While the gun grabbers hoped to demonize gun owners and “shame” them into somehow feeling guilty about Sandy Hook, what actually happened is that gun owners found new courage and American pride, and they have loudly voiced their intention to wage a war of resistance against any government that attempts to take their guns.

• In New York state, where Mayor Cuomo managed to quickly shove through an illegal, unconstitutional gun control law, there is now open talk of armed resistance against the state government. Elsewhere, there is even talk that U.S. Senators who vote for gun control may see their own staffers and families targeted for assassination. As Stewart Rhodes said on InfoWars Nightly News on December 31st, 2012:

“They will be targeted. I think that if they pass this bill, legislators who vote for it will be assassinated… they’re going to be military targets, too, and they’re going to be killed. They think they’re immune, but they’re not. They cannot walk around with enough security to keep from being shot by a sniper.” – Stewart Rhodes, OathKeepers.org

(For the record, Stewart Rhodes is not calling for this action. He is merely stating the obvious: that this is likely to take place if gun confiscation comes up for a vote in the U.S. Senate.)

It’s not just Stewart Rhodes saying this, either. Robbie Cooper from UrbanUndergrounds.com says much the same thing:

“We all quickly agreed a violent revolution and rebellion would occur almost immediately [following a federal gun ban]. Most, if not all, members of Congress who voted for the ban / confiscation would be assassinated. And the very first prey that would find themselves in the scopes of the rebels would be the members of Congress who passed this ban and the members of the media who have been their willing mouthpieces and agents of propaganda.”

Bob Owens from Bob-Owens.com paints a similar picture:

“The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they cannot be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.”

For the record once again, these people are not calling for such actions, they are merely predicting what is likely to take place. A government that attempts to disarm the citizenry at gunpoint is essentially declaring war on the People and should expect to be treated like an occupying enemy of America. On top of that, the real power in all this is that there is no central leader of any such rebellion. These actions would organically rise out of the population in the form of independent, self-initiated teams of armed defenders who are willing to risk their lives to save America from tyranny.

Veteran firearms instructor Paul Howe even penned a popular piece called 2nd Amendment and the Kool-Aid Drinkers in which he explains one popular solution for handling those who attempt to engage in gun confiscation:

Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car.

Howe also explains, in other interviews, that gun confiscation teams — “tac teams” — should expect to be attacked without warning and take huge casualties, reducing the effectiveness of those teams and effectively ending gun confiscation activities.

Thank you, Obama, Biden, Cuomo and Feinstein

In all, the gun grabbers in America have become the single most effective gun rights recruitment team in U.S. history.

They have awakened people to the truth about the need for a Second Amendment and the ever-present risk of tyrannical government trying to dominate a free people. They have encouraged the sale of 10+ million firearms which are now held in the hands of private citizens. They have swelled the ranks of the NRA and Gun Owners of America. They have proven all the so-called “conspiracy theorists” right about claims that the government is coming for our guns.

The post-Sandy Hook actions of the gun grabbers have actually set back the gun control agenda by at least a decade. Americans are on high alert now, and they realize there is more than enough critical mass of resistance to stand up against any gun registration or confiscation scheme that might be attempted by an arrogant, unconstitutional and lawless government.

Obama has effectively declared himself King

Remember, the Obama administration openly claims the right to order the execution of American citizens without trial, without evidence and without any due process. A President who would justify those actions could justify anything, including nationwide gun confiscation, forced FEMA camp round-ups of citizens, military troops on the streets of U.S. cities and so on. Obama believes there is NO LIMIT to his power, and as a result he is, by definition, a totalitarianistic tyrant.

But Obama does not have the loyalty of the military, nor the sheriffs, nor most police departments. He is absolutely hated by gun owners and political conservatives. His circle of followers is weak and shrinking by the day. His political supporters are largely inner city welfare recipients who, as history has shown, matter little in the equation of human history.

Liberty is winning in America, and it will continue to win as long as you remain ever vigilant, knowing that the federal government is constantly scheming and conspiring to dream up ways to blame gun owners for tragic events and thereby invoke a false justification for disarming the citizens and creating a “monopoly of violence” of government.

Warning: How the gun grabbers could still win

Do not allow the victory of the moment to cloud your vision for the future, however. The gun grabbers are, right now, scheming up new ways to blame gun owners and pass gun confiscation in America.

Operation Fast and Furious, for example, was designed from the very start (and at the highest levels) to cause runaway gun violence near the U.S. – Mexico border, providing an excuse to try to ban guns everywhere across America. It failed because they got caught, but it shows that if they will stage Fast and Furious, they will stage anything.

You can bet your bottom dollar that high-level operatives inside the Obama administration are right now plotting another mass murder event to be blamed on gun owners. These are called “false flag” attacks, and the most likely scenarios that may be carried out include:

• A staged mass shooting at an airport security checkpoint where TSA officers are gunned down. The federal response will be to demand that the TSA be armed, and this is how Obama will create his “domestic security force” much like Hitler’s brownshirts.

• Another bombing of a federal building or local police station. Expect the patsy to be a drugged-up military veteran who owns lots of guns and whose computer just happens to have a history of visiting websites like InfoWars.com. Expect Alex Jones to be blamed for everything.

• A repeat of Sandy Hook with lots and lots of dead children. Schools still remain “gun free zones” which means they are wide-open shooting galleries for psychos who don’t want anyone to shoot back. The more children die, the more political power the gun grabbers can squeeze out of the tragedy while somehow blaming the NRA.

• A dirty bomb released in a major U.S. city and blamed on “patriots” or some anti-government group. Of course, as we already know, a group within the FBI masterminds many of these domestic terror plots — this is openly admitted by the FBI and was even published in the New York Times, believe it or not.

• A mass shooting at a sports stadium in order to terrorize sports crowds. This is why it’s smart to avoid sports crowds for the foreseeable future.

In all these theoretical events, you can expect high-capacity magazines, AR-15 rifles and possibly even silencers (suppressors) to be planted on the scene in order to provide justification for those items to be banned. Whatever the government wants to take away from the citizens, it simply arranges to have them dropped off at the next staged mass murder scene. Want an example? There was no AR-15 rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting. That narrative is a total hoax.

Five years ago, all this would have sounded like a kooky conspiracy theory. Today, gun owners all across America have come to realize this is fact. The government really does stage mass killings in order to forward its political agenda. They really are coming after your guns. And yes, they really did stage Fast and Furious for the purpose of causing enough mass death near the border to justify new gun control laws.

Thank you, Obama and Feinstein, for showing your cards and proving us right. America is now more awake, more vigilant and far better armed than before Sandy Hook. You have managed to achieve precisely the opposite of what you had hoped, and the spirit of liberty in America is stronger than ever.

-

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA LARRY PRATT: OBAMA GUN BAN MODELS THAT OF HITLER

Infowars.com
Feb 1, 2013

-

OBAMA STILL BACKS NEW GUN BAN

Says background checks are a ‘smart idea’

By Tom Cohen, CNN

February 4, 2013

-

-

President Barack Obama on Monday reiterated his call for a comprehensive package of steps against gun violence as the focus on possible Senate legislation appeared to narrow to expanded background checks and limited ammunition magazines, rather than a ban on semi-automatic rifles that mimic assault weapons.

Obama took part in a discussion with Minneapolis officials before telling police officers and others that an increase in gun violence nationwide, including the Connecticut school massacre in December, made it vital to address the issue now.

“No law or set of laws can keep our children completely safe,” Obama said in calling for “basic, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence.”

He added, “if there’s one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.”

Obama emphasized his support for banning semi-automatic rifles modeled after military weapons as part of an updated version of an earlier weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Opponents led by the influential National Rifle Association, oppose any ban on weapons, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that such a provision faced an uphill struggle.

Reid told ABC on Sunday that he backed expanding background checks to private gun sales at shows and other steps, but he refused to endorse a ban on what are called assault-style rifles modeled after military weapons.

A popular version is the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that can be purchased with magazines holding 30 rounds. A similar weapon was used in the Connecticut school shooting that killed 20 first graders and revived a national focus on tougher gun control measures.

While Obama and some top Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, seek a ban on many semi-automatic rifles, the NRA and politicians from both major parties oppose such a move as an infringement on constitutional rights.

In his remarks Monday, Obama rejected that argument, urging supporters to tell opponents of renewed weapons ban that “there’s no legislation to eliminate all guns; there’s no legislation being proposed to subvert the Second Amendment.”

Obama’s trip to Minneapolis was intended to raise attention to steps taken in the city, including a recent regional gun summit hosted by Mayor R.T. Rybak and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Both cities have experienced mass shootings in recent months, and Obama met with two Minneapolis-area law enforcement officials last week when he discussed the issue with local police and sheriffs department members at the White House.

The NRA and its leading supporters in Congress argue that steps proposed by Obama won’t work and would fail to address the problem.

For example, they say criminals skirt background checks, so expanding the system would miss the main target of the legislation. They also contend that the semi-automatic rifles targeted by Feinstein in a proposal introduced last week are used in a fraction of the nation’s gun violence.

Obama and other supporters of stronger gun control measures say all possible efforts must be made to address what they call a chronic and growing problem of gun violence, particularly involving vulnerable targets such as students.

Reid of Nevada is the top Senate Democrat, who sets the chamber’s legislative schedule. He said Sunday that he wants the Judiciary Committee to produce a bill that could be debated by the full Senate and would be open to proposed amendments by any senator.

However, Reid signaled that the committee version would lack the ban on assault-style weapons.

“If Dianne Feinstein, by the time it’s through the Judiciary Committee, if she doesn’t have her assault weapons, at least let her have an opportunity to offer this amendment” on the Senate floor, Reid told ABC.

Reid, who noted he owned guns and was a former law officer, said he opposed the Clinton-era assault weapons ban that expired midway through the Bush administration.

He called for expanding background checks and steps to halt federal gun trafficking while saying the Senate should “take a look at” unspecified limits on ammunition magazines.

Asked about backing he has received from the NRA, Reid said that “just because they resist it doesn’t mean we can’t do things.”

Other steps under consideration include better monitoring of people with mental illness to prevent them from obtaining guns.

Democrats have said the background check measure would stand the best chance of garnering bipartisan support, including from some pro-gun Democrats. Even if passed by the Senate, a gun bill would face tougher scrutiny in the Republican-led House.

Obama said Monday that lawmakers in Congress from both parties were working together on plans that would expand background checks to all gun purchases and criminalize “straw purchases” in which legal gun owners buy weapons for people prohibited from doing so.

Guns sold through private sales currently avoid background checks — the so-called gun show loophole.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said last week that he was in talks with colleagues — including several who are ranked highly by the NRA — on possible legislation to expand background checks on private gun sales.

Sources close to both Schumer and Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma told CNN the two were in serious discussions about co-sponsoring a bill to strengthen background checks. Schumer sits on the Judiciary Committee, while Coburn is a former member.

However, NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre told the panel that the current background check system doesn’t work, so expanding it would only create an unmanageable government bureaucracy instead of reducing gun crime.

During the Super Bowl on Sunday night, a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns broadcast an ad showing the NRA’s LaPierre, in 1999, endorsing the expanded background checks his group now opposes.

Supporters of gun control argue that the constitutional right to bear arms can be limited, for example, by the existing ban on private citizens possessing grenade launchers and other military weaponry.

However, Denver University law professor David Kopel said last week that the Supreme Court made clear that gun control could not include weapons used commonly by law-abiding citizens, such as the top-selling AR-15 that Feinstein’s legislation would ban.

-

GUN CONTROL OFFICIALS NOW SET SIGHTS ON AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECKS

By Peter Jamison, Times Staff Writer
February 1, 2013

Without bullets, slugs or shot, a gun is no deadlier than a steel club. But the question of how to keep firearms’ lethal projectiles out of the wrong hands has historically been a low priority for regulators more concerned about the guns themselves.

That could be changing. As the nation debates competing proposals to reduce gun violence, some law enforcement leaders and elected officials argue it’s time to examine an area they say is especially devoid of common sense regulation: the buying and selling of ammunition.

They say there is an obvious inconsistency in federal and state law. While it is illegal for certain classes of potentially dangerous people — such as felons and the mentally ill — to possess bullets, nobody’s checking. Ammunition buyers don’t have to undergo the background checks required of gun purchasers.

“My view of it is that it becomes, in essence, a meaningless law,” Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said, referring to the largely unenforced provisions of federal and Florida law that bar convicted criminals from possessing ammunition. “It’s a law without any teeth.”

A background check for ammunition as well as guns, Gualtieri said, “makes all the sense in the world to me.”

Gualtieri is an elected Republican, but his rationale is similar to that of a prominent politician from the other side of the political spectrum. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, has introduced a bill that would establish universal background checks for ammunition purchases. The law would also increase record-keeping obligations for ammo sales and require retailers to notify the police when one person buys more than 1,000 rounds.

Speaking to the Tampa Bay Times by phone Thursday from Washington, Blumenthal said his proposed legislation was rooted in the concerns expressed to him by police in his home state.

“My bill originated from my conversations with law enforcement officials,” Blumenthal said. “They told me, ‘Here’s a glaring gap in the law.’ ” Such checks, he added, are “common sense, and common ground for anyone who wants to enforce the existing laws.”

Hillsborough County sheriff’s Col. Donna Lusczynski said any proposal to expand background checks to include ammunition should be scrutinized to determine that it “doesn’t, in fairness, overburden some of the businesses” that sell most of their merchandise to law-abiding customers.

But in light of the existing system’s shortcomings, she said, ammo background checks are “something we need to look into.”

The massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., might not have been affected by tighter ammo regulation. The 20-year-old gunman at Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza, had no criminal record. But in Pinellas County, another chilling case demonstrates the existing laws’ shortcomings.

Benjamin Bishop, an Oldsmar 18-year-old, has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder. Authorities say he killed his mother and her boyfriend in October with a shotgun. Bishop had a criminal record, so he had to have a friend buy the gun for him, detectives say.

The ammunition was a different story. In a jailhouse interview with the Times, Bishop said he twice went to an Oldsmar gun store to buy rounds of ammo for the weapon. He said he was struck by the ease of the transaction compared to the challenges he faced getting a gun.

“I guess you’re allowed to buy ammunition without a background check or anything,” he said. Bishop’s assessment: “It was pretty easy.”

While the crime Bishop is charged with committing is unusual, his casual bypassing of ammo restrictions might not be. A 2006 study that tracked ammunition in Los Angeles found that “prohibited possessors” bought more than 10,000 rounds of ammo at legitimate retailers over a six-month period. The study found that 2.6 percent of buyers, on average more than one in 50 people, was barred by law from owning ammunition.

“I’m not interested in entering a debate about banning firearms. It’s not going to happen,” said George Tita, the study’s lead author and a criminology professor at the University of California, Irvine. However, he said, “We have an obligation to keep the firearms, ammunition — whatever anyone is not legally able to possess — out of possession.”

Not everyone agrees that background checks are the sensible way to accomplish that goal.

“It’s like saying you can’t buy gasoline unless you have a car,” said Marion Hammer, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s state lobbying arm, the Unified Sportsmen of Florida. Hammer said requiring background checks for ammunition would be redundant, because the law already prohibits certain people from owning ammo.

She said requiring background checks for both ammunition as well as guns would be a strain for the state’s law enforcement computer systems.

“We have enough laws on the books already without new laws and without overloading the system for ammunition,” she said. She continued, facetiously, “Why don’t we have background checks on people who want to buy steak knives?”

In Florida, gun background checks are processed through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Agency spokesman Keith Kameg said that each check takes about a minute. The total time it takes a retailer to call the department and receive a response, start to finish, is about four minutes, he said.

“It’s a very simple law enforcement tool,” Blumenthal said. “The burden is minimal to the government, and the gun shops, and to the individual.”

-

LENNY MAGILL: NEW GUN LEGISLATION IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL

Published on Dec 28, 2012

The latest White House petition garnering attention demands that Senator Dianne Feinstein be tried in federal court for treason against the constitution for her role in introducing legislation that would go a long way to repealing the second amendment.

The full text of the petition reads; https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/try-senator-dianne-feinstein-federa… The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government. Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.

-

ANTI-GUNNERS’ WISH LIST: BAN PRIVATE GUN SALES, BAN GUN, BAN MAGAZINE

ammoland.com
February 2, 2013

While banning guns and magazines is being actively promoted by the anti-gunners (as evidenced by introduction of Sen. Feinstein’s S. 150), the criminalization of private firearm transfers is the centerpiece of their anti-Second Amendment efforts.

This is part of a strategy to chip away at our Second Amendment rights under the guise of being “reasonable.”

But if you understand exactly what the anti-gunners are really talking about, you’ll understand that the restrictions they’re proposing are anything but reasonable.

While we don’t know the final form this legislation will take, these checks no doubt would require background checks for firearm transfers between lifelong friends, and maybe even between family members.  It would also be a step toward national gun registration.   As we mentioned in an article last week, “universal” background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals, minus whatever exceptions our opponents will stand for.

Does anyone really think that these checks will be conducted between drug dealers on a Chicago street corner or gang members in an L.A. alley?  Of course not.  You know that’s ridiculous and so do the anti-gun politicians, but they don’t care. 

And where and how would these personal checks be done?  Would you and your friend, or grandson, or mother have to drive to some government office at the state capital?  Or travel several hours to the government-approved, federally licensed dealer in another part of your state?  What happens when the instant check system isn’t functioning?  How will the government monitor and enforce these checks?  Obviously, this proposal raises more questions than it answers.

Furthermore, “universal” background checks are unnecessary.

It is already a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms without having a federal dealer’s license.  It is already a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check–that’s all dealers, everywhere, whether at retail stores or gun shows.  Further, it is already a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should know is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm, though Vice President Biden does not think it’s worth the government’s time to prosecute these criminal acts.

NRA does NOT support “universal” background checks and will continue to oppose, “universal” background checks and registration schemes. We do believe that records of those who are prohibited by law from purchasing firearms (including those whose mental health history puts them in this category) ought to be included in the federal instant check system.

Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose “universal” background check legislation AND S. 150, Sen. Feinstein’s gun and magazine ban.  To identify and contact your elected officials in Washington, D.C., use the “Write Your Reps” feature at www.NRAILA.org, or you can reach your member of Congress by phone at 202-224-3121.

-

GUN BANNERS AREN’T JUST AFTER SOME GUNS, THEY NOW WANT ALL GUNS

ammoland.com
January 1, 2013

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has released a summary of the gun control measures that she wishes to implement, mere days after the horrific shooting of 26 people, including 20 children, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

Ceasing on the “opportunity to do things [that he] could not do before”… On Sunday, President Obama declared he would use the “full weight” of his office to support the measure.

We, as a nation, have endured more than 40 years of the modern gun control experiment, and to what end?

Chicago and D.C., the Brady Campaign’s epitomes of progressive gun control are awash in gun violence, and Chicago alone has recently surpassed 500 murders in 2012, a new Windy City record. Albert Einstein once said that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.” Not surprisingly, the gun control lobby’s response is, “obviously, we need MORE gun control.” The questions are, at what point does “more” become “too much” and are we willing to simply wait until it’s too late to protect the interests that are personally important to each of us? At what point will you, personally, say “enough”?

Sen. Feinstein’s bill calls for banning any sale of so-called “assault weapons”; similar to the 1994 ban, except that this proposal is much more far reaching and encompasses a far greater range of firearms. Her proposal includes prohibitions on firearms that have but a single “undesirable” characteristic; any one of which will classify your firearm as an “assault weapon”. It proposes that any of the newly classified “assault weapons” be registered as NFA items and require the purchase of a tax stamp. What “single characteristics”, you ask? A pistol grip, a forward grip, a thumb-hole stock, an adjustable length stock or any semiautomatic rifle having an overall length of less than 30 inches!

Most youth model firearms that we use to pass on our firearms heritage will be reclassified as prohibited “Assault Rifles”.

Under Feinstein’s bill, you would be required to register common firearms with the BATFE as an NFA item, just as if you owned a crew served machine gun. The venerable (but scary looking) AR-15 is a favorite for competitive shooting, the taking of small to medium game, varmint control, and home defense.

If you own a rifle which Feinstein and her cronies classify as an “assault weapon”, you would be grandfathered in under the current proposal and may legally own it until your death, so long as you have your original receipt. Under Sen. DiFi’s proposal, your heir’s BIRTHRIGHT MUST BE SURRENDERED TO THE GOVERNMENT! It would be a violation of law to bequeath it to your children or spouse.

Do you own a handgun that can ACCEPT a magazine capable of containing more than 10 cartridges? Do you own a handgun that has a threaded barrel? You too are in the sights of Feinstein’s gun banning radar.

Understand that even if your personal firearms are not subject to the proposed legislation, eventually, they will be. Gun banners like Feinstein, Schumer, and Reid simply won’t be satisfied until every single firearm in the United States is banned, and the Second Amendment is completely dismantled. Don’t believe it? Gun banners continue to tell us that “no one wants our guns”. In the recent years of gun control, no politician dared utter anything to the contrary…until now.

In an interview on an Albany, NY. radio station on Thursday, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo was discussing a package of gun control measures he planned to introduce in New York State on January 9th.

On the subject of “assault weapons”, Gov. Cuomo declared, “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Believe it friends; they are coming for your guns. It’s out in the open now. Never mind the Second Amendment guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Never mind the Fourth Amendment guaranteed right to be secure in your possessions. The gun banners can’t be bothered with trivialities like Constitutional Rights or Supreme Court decisions. They are irrelevant, you must comply!

Ironically, not a single proposed gun control measure would have had any effect on the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The firearm(s) used were lawfully owned but illegally obtained by an insane person. The shooter broke at least 23 laws before the first round was fired. Further, no one from the gun banners is talking about the real issue here; mental health and the factors that contribute to violent crime. When a drunk driver swerves into another vehicle and innocent people lose their lives, no one blames the car. And don’t be fooled about the altruistic motives professed by the gun haters.

Despite what Feinstein claims, the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice brief done in 1999, midway through the period of the original assault weapons ban found, “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control studied multiple gun control laws including the AWB and found, “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” Likewise, a National Research Council panel in 2004 performed a critical review on firearms, and noted that the ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence”.

The reason the AWB had little, if any effect on gun violence was revealed in a 2004 National Institute of Justice report which found that rifles were rarely used in gun crimes. This finding is verified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports database which shows that of the 8,583 murders committed using firearms in 2011; only 323 were committed using rifles of any kind, including the small fraction referred to as “assault weapons”. To put this into context, the same 2011 data show that over twice as many murders, 723 in all, were committed using bare hands and feet.

Florida State Senator Chris Smith has even filed a bill that would destroy your right to self-defense any time that you have left a “place of safety”.

The time has come for ALL gun owners to band together to defeat these overt and unprecedented attacks on the right to keep and bear arms. We can no longer simply take the selfish attitude that if it doesn’t affect us personally, it doesn’t matter. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” The time for silence has passed. We need every gun owner in America – hunter, competitive shooter, collector, self-defense advocate, and recreational shooters – to stand united and call and write your legislators to express your disgust with the trashing of your fundamental and individual rights, rights just as sacred as the right to free speech.

Your liberty and that of your children may very well depend on your actions right now. Time has run out, fence sitting cannot be abided.

Act now by following these three easy steps:

1. Write and call your legislators immediately!
2. Join Florida Carry!
3. Stay Involved!

Draft Mail Helper (feel free to cut, copy, paste, and edit to suit)
Please don’t change the subject line.

—————————————————————————-

TO:

SUBJECT: Just Say “NO!” to Gun and Magazine Bans!

Dear ,

California Senator Feinstein is once again pushing for a ban on so called “Assault Weapons”. This is a thinly veiled attack on all private gun ownership. Her own publications make it clear that her proposal is not about the features of the firearms, but instead is about removing as many firearms as possible from private ownership, despite the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

See: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

“Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test”.

This part of the proposed gun ban is particularly telling about the true agenda of the gun-haters. You see, this makes it obvious that these features are not being banned only because a gun owner would just need to remove those features to keep their gun from being put in to the same classification as a highly regulated automatic machine-gun. Because these parts are easily removed, a person would be able to keep their firearm by just removing those banned parts. This is not good enough for the gun-ban lobby; they want as many guns banned as possible regardless of what features they actually have on them.

Please help support the law abiding gun owners of Florida and the United States by just saying “NO!” to all gun and magazine ban or registration proposals.

Respectfully yours,

About:
Florida Carry is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Florida Carry, Inc. was organized by a group of Florida gun rights activists in order to better coordinate activities, effectively lobby the state legislature, and to provide a legal entity capable of filing suit to demand compliance with state and federal law. Florida Carry stands only to represent our members and the over 6 million gun owners of Florida. We are not beholden to any national organization’s agenda that may compromise that mission.
Florida Carry works tirelessly toward repealing and striking down ill-conceived gun control laws that have been proven to provide safe havens to criminals and be deadly to law abiding citizens.

-

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE GOVERNMENT BANNED FIREARMS AND TRIED TO CONFISCATE OUR GUNS?

Robbie Cooper
urbangrounds.com
January 2, 2013

If you read the summary of Sen. Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban (read it here on her Senate page) it’s very clear that — despite having no idea what an assault weapon actually is, or how it differs from a semi-automatic hunting rifle (hint: it doesn’t)  — Feinstein’s ultimate motive is no different than it was back in 1995when she told for the complete ban and confiscation of ALL weapons from American citizens:

Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

I was discussing this Feinstein’s newest assault on our second amendment rights last night with some neighbors — men who have spent more hours hunting and shooting guns than most people spend watching television. Then I brought up this 1995 video. Our conversation naturally turned to “what if…” scenarios and how they would unfold.

A rifle behind very blade of grass. And blending into every tree.

As in, “What if…the government banned all semi-automatic weapons and ordered them be turned in or confiscated from US citizens who would not do so voluntarily?”

We all quickly agreed a violent revolution and rebellion would occur almost immediately. Most, if not all, members of Congress who voted for the ban/confiscation would be assassinated. In fact, what Bob Owens describes in this post “What You’ll See At the Revolution” is exactly what we described would happen.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Which very closely follows the thoughts described in this oft-linked and -discussed post: “What I Saw At The Coup”.

And the very first prey that would find themselves in the scopes of the rebels would be the members of Congress who passed this ban and the members of the media who have been their willing mouthpieces and agents of propaganda.

-

PETITION: TRY DIANNE FEINSTEIN FOR TYRANNY

-

-

California Senator’s gun grabbing legislation causes outrage

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 28, 2012

-

The latest White House petition garnering attention demands that Senator Dianne Feinstein be tried in federal court for treason against the constitution for her role in introducing legislation that would go a long way to repealing the second amendment.

The full text of the petition reads;

The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.

As we have previously explained, although the White House asserts that it will respond to all petitions that reach 25,000 signatures within 30 days, the Obama administration has instead cherry picked which ones it addresses.

The petition to try Feinstein for treason currently has over 1700 signatures and is climbing rapidly. A separate petition calling for Feinstein, “to be immediately banned from the United States Senate and….prohibited from ever again holding public office in the United States of America,” also has over 1600 signatures.

Despite receiving over a million signatures in total, none of the secession petitions that flooded the White House.gov website last month have been addressed over 45 days later.

The petition calling on Feinstein to be tried for treason is a response to the California Senator’s announcement that she will introduce new legislation early next year that will criminalize millions of American gun owners if approved.

Feinstein’s bill will outlaw guns with magazines over 10 rounds, require a national fingerprint database of all gun owners and ban nearly all handguns.

As Mike Adams explains, “If Sen. Feinstein’s outrageous, unconstitutional and freedom-crushing proposal becomes law, it would require all gun owners to register the serial numbers of all their guns with the federal government. They would have to supply fingerprints, undergo a new round of background checks, and somehow get the “permission” of a local police chief or Sheriff who will vouch for them. This is Feinstein’s wicked way of essentially criminalizing ALL gun ownership by American citizens.”

The legislation has caused outrage amongst second amendment activists because it closely resembles Adolf Hitler’s 1938 Nazi Weapons Law which itself was virtually mirrored by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

According to some observers, Feinstein’s bill represents an act of “political suicide” because it is so extreme that it has little chance of passing and will cost the Democrats untold political capital.

In related news, the petition to deport Piers Morgan for his repeated rhetorical assaults against the second amendment has now obtained over 87,400 signatures following viral media coverage a week after it was created by Infowars.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

-

PETITION TO TRY FEINSTEIN FOR TREASON REACHES THRESHOLD FOR WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE

Will Obama administration ignore controversial issue again?

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 11, 2013

A petition to try California Senator Dianne Feinstein for treason as a response to her efforts to pass draconian gun control legislation has surpassed the required number of signatures that now mandates a White House response.

The petition, which was filed with the We The People website on December 27, has already obtained over 29,000 signatures weeks before the deadline of January 26.

“Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the United States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution,” states the petition.

Feinstein is set to introduce gun control legislation on January 22 that would treat gun owners akin to sex offenders, forcing them to submit fingerprints as well as requiring all Americans to register the serial numbers of all their guns with the federal government. The bill would also ban a plethora of different firearms.

As we have previously highlighted, although the White House’s own rules dictate that they must respond to petitions that receive over 25,000 signatures within 30 days, controversial petitions have routinely been ignored, including the recent secession issue.

The petition for Texas to secede from the union reached the threshold to warrant a comment from the administration on November 12 but has still not been addressed nearly two months later.

In contrast, meaningless petitions that do not even reach the 25,000 benchmark, such as one asking the White House to release its recipe for “honey ale,” have received prompt response.

Petitions calling on Obama to enact gun control measures in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, only three of which totaled over 25,000 signatures, were also addressed within days.

Feinstein’s hypocrisy on the gun control issue has been well documented. In 1995, the California Senator admitted that she carried a gun for personal protection after receiving threats from a terrorist group.

However, in the very same year she called for an “outright ban” on all guns for ordinary citizens, sending the message,” Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

-

DIANNE FEINSTEIN ANNOUNCES PLAN FOR AMERICAN GUN OWNERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED AND REGISTERED; LEGAL GUN OWNERS MUST SURRENDER THEIR FIREARMS TO THE ATF

-

DIANNE FEINSTEIN SAYS HER GOAL IS TO DISARM ALL AMERICANS

“Mr. and Mrs. America… turn ‘em all in.”

Alex Jones
Infowars.com
December 31, 2012

Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

-

-

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinstein has admitted that the bill is about gun confiscation.

She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to disarm the American people.

On Thursday, Feinstein will introduced her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

It is a gun confiscation bill.

The proposed bill is open declaration of war on the Second Amendment.

It’s no coincidence that the communist Chinese, the biggest holders of U.S. debt, have demanded the American people be disarmed. It is the simple action of the authoritarian.

-

‘NO MA’AM’: LETTER FROM U.S. MARINE TO DIANNE FEINSTEIN GOES VIRAL

The following letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

-

SENATE DEMOCRATS PLAN “NUCLEAR OPTION” TO ENACT ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATION

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 3, 2013

Soon after the 113th Congress convenes today, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid of Nevada will move to destroy the filibuster and put the “nuclear option” in place.

Democrats want a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds majority or a supermajority required to put down a filibuster. The two-thirds vote, known as cloture, allows a single Senator to hold up Senate business.

“This is a trick which anti-gun Democrats intend to use the first day of the Senate session in order to obliterate the Senate rules and clear the way for 50-vote passage of gun control,” warns Gun Owners of America.

“Your senator’s vote on the ‘nuclear option’ may be the most important gun-related vote he casts during the 113th Congress. It may be the difference between whether Obama can secure Senate passage of gun bans, magazine bans, gun show bans, and bans on private gun sales.”

“Gun grabbers are not going to be able to get 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster of gun control.  But, with the help of fake ‘pro-gun’ Senate Democrats, they may be able to get 50,” GOA notes.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats in Congress are working on legislation to ban all semiautomatic firearms and magazines, enforce an effective ban on gun shows, and outlaw private gun sales between citizens.

Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” Feinstein told 60 Minutes, thus revealing the radical and anti-constitutional scope of her agenda to disarm America.

Feinstein and her co-conspirators in the Senate want to limit and if possible remove any significant resistance to enacting legislation destroying the Second Amendment. That’s why Reid is going for the nuclear option.

“Our Founders intended the Senate to be a body where legislation was slowed down and subject to improvement through extended debate and amendment,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said in response to efforts to cut the legs out from under the filibuster. “Reid’s proposed ‘reforms’ would remove two of the most fundamental rights traditionally reserved to all Senators — to freely debate and amend legislation. I shall not stand for that.”

-

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA LARRY PRATT: END GUN FREE ZONES

-

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: “I CARRIED A CONCEALED WEAPON”

The hypocrisy of gun-grabbers knows no bounds

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 31, 2012

Despite calling in the same year for an outright ban on all firearms, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is set to introduce legislation that would gut the second amendment, said in 1995 that she carried a concealed gun in order to protect herself against terrorists.

-

-

Speaking at a US Senate hearing on terrorism one week after the Oklahoma City Bombing, Feinstein spoke about how she responded to an attempt by terrorists from the New World Liberation Army to bomb her home.

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me,” said Feinstein.

The hypocrisy of Feinstein choosing to arm herself in self-defense while in the very same year calling for an “outright ban” on all guns is another reminder of rampant hypocrisy on behalf of would-be gun grabbers that has prevailed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

Feinstein is behind a bill set to be introduced shortly that will outlaw guns with magazines over 10 rounds, require a national fingerprint database of all gun owners and ban nearly all handguns.

Michael Moore immediately went public to exploit the Newtown shooting in calling for draconian gun control legislation, yet his own bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at in New York’s JFK airport back in 2005.

President Obama also seized upon the tragedy to push his agenda to disarm Americans, conveniently leaving out the fact that the school which his daughters attend in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times.

During an ABC Nightline interview which was broadcast on December 26 yet was recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters.

Other prominent gun control advocates such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg have also aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times.

In addition, an emotionally manipulative video in which a plethora of celebrities demanded the American people get behind gun control was filmed and released just days after the massacre. However, as this shrewd rebuttal highlights, most of the actors featured in the campaign have themselves used guns in their movie roles on numerous occasions.

The media has also been complicit in completely ignoring recent shootings which were brought to an end solely due to law-abiding citizens exercising their second amendment rights, including an incident just two days after the Connecticut massacre during which a gunman entered a theater in San Antonio after killing his ex-girlfriend but was shot dead by an off duty policewoman.

In addition, this month’s mall shooting in Oregon was brought to an end when 22-year-old Nick Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, pulled a gun on the killer, prompting masked shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts to use his final bullet on himself.

In both cases, the media virtually ignored the fact that potential massacres were stopped by responsible Americans using firearms.

The National Safety Council notes that guns are used some 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, meaning that firearms are utilized to protect innocent lives in 80 times more cases than they are used to end lives.

-

ANTI-GUN SENATOR SHOOTS INTRUDER

State Senator R.C. Soles (D – NC)Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City , N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician’s home county said.

The intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen andBrunswick counties..

The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff’s Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested,declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.

“I am not in a position to talk to you,” Soles said by telephone. “I’m right in the middle of an investigation.”

The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the “Do as i say and not as i do” Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.

It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine.

But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.

-

HOUSE DEMOCRAT SHEILA JACKSON LEE: ‘TURN IN YOUR GUNS’

By Pete Kasperowicz | The Hill

December 19, 2012

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Wednesday afternoon urged people to turn in their guns, arguing it would be an appropriate response to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Jackson Lee said on the House floor. “Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America.”

Dick’s Sporting Goods announced this week that it would stop selling and displaying guns at its store closest to Newtown and would suspend the sale of modern sporting rifles nationwide out of respect for the victims of the shooting.”We are extremely saddened by the unspeakable tragedy that occurred last week in Newtown, CT, and our hearts go out to the victims and their families, and to the entire community,” the retail chain said in a statement on its website. “We continue to extend our deepest sympathies to those affected by this terrible tragedy.”

–

DEMOCRAT LAWMAKERS, GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES CALL FOR NEW RESTRICTIONS

By Daniel Strauss | The Hill

Several Democratic lawmakers, as well as gun control advocates, said that Friday’s fatal shootings at a Connecticut elementary school should move the president and Congress to swiftly address the issue of gun violence in America.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) called on President Obama and Congress to have a “serious discussion about gun control” in response to the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Nadler’s statement came as details continued to emerge about the shooting. According to Connecticut State Police have reported that 20 children and 7 adults, including the shooter, have lost their lives. The alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, 24, of Hoboken, New Jersey, killed his father in Hoboken before driving to the Connecticut school, where he killed his mother, a teacher at the school, and the other adults and children, according to multiple media reports.

“I am absolutely horrified by news of the cold-blooded shooting of dozens of children in Newtown, Conn.,” Nadler said in a statement on Friday. “Yet another unstable person has gotten access to firearms and committed an unspeakable crime against innocent children. We cannot simply accept this as a routine product of modern American life.

“If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don’t know when is. How many more Columbines and Newtowns must we live through? I am challenging President Obama, the Congress, and the American public to act on our outrage and, finally, do something about this.”

Another New York Democrat, Rep. Nita Lowey, called the shooting “senseless and heartbreaking” and said there needed to be “concrete action” to prevent further gun violence.

“We cannot tolerate mass shootings as a mere inconvenience or a normal part of our everyday lives,” Lowey said. “Easy availability of the deadliest weapons to the most dangerous people has cost countless lives and caused immeasurable suffering, never more so than today. Our expressions of sympathy must be matched with concrete actions to stop gun violence.”

“It is past time for a national debate on gun control and solutions to ensure that this terrible trend in mass shootings finally comes to an end,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), who lost her husband to a mass murderer on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, echoed Markey’s sentiment.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions right now, but one thing is clear – there’s too much gun violence in our country,” McCarthy said in a release. “These shootings are becoming all too common, and it’s too easy for dangerous people to get the weapons that help them perform mass executions like today’s.

“Leaders in Washington from both parties, and groups like the NRA, all say that now is not the time to talk about how gun safety laws can save lives in America.  I agree, now is not the time to talk about gun laws – the time for that conversation was long before all those kids in Connecticut died today.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added his voice to those calling for action to address gun violence.

“Today is a day for mourning and prayer, but we must immediately get to work to end these senseless, mass killings of innocent Americans. Together, we must act now to stop the carnage,” Van Hollen said in a release.

At a press conference, President Obama said meaningful action should be taken to prevent future shooting tragedies.

The president said “it is time to take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics,” an indication that Obama could be prepared to confront gun control.

Responding to Obama’s press conference, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his organization was encouraged by Obama’s comments.

“We were moved by President Obama’s raw emotion during his remarks today,” Gross said. “We are committed to working with him to channel it into the change that is too long overdue.”

In 2010 the Brady campaign gave Obama a failing grade on pushing for stricter gun laws.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) responded that Obama needs to do more than call for action.

“Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before,” Bloomberg said in a statement. “What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who introduced legislation to ban high-capacity magazine clips in automatic weapons, also called for action to improve gun control.

“This is a day of great sadness in America, and our hearts go out to the victims and their families,” Lautenberg said. “This latest shooting tragedy is an unthinkable act of violence carried out against young children and innocent people.  Americans are sick and tired of these attacks on our children and neighbors and they are sick and tired of nothing being done in Washington to stop the bloodshed.  If we do not take action to address gun violence, shooting tragedies like this will continue.  As President Obama said, we must act now ‘regardless of the politics.’”

-

BUREAUCRAT SAYS IT IS WRONG TO ADVISE CITIZENS TO ARM THEMSELVES IN SELF-DEFENSE

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 5, 2012

San Bernardino City Attorney James Penman had to clarify comments he made about firearms and self-defense to members of the city council who found his remarks “inappropriate,” according to the Huffington Post.

Penman had told residents to “lock your doors and load your guns” due to a lack of police presence in the California city because of bankruptcy. “The problem is serious,” Penman said. “The Police Department will do everything it can to protect you. … But they can’t do everything they would like” because of financial problems.

The City Attorney told The Press-Enterprise he was repeating what the police officers told him – San Bernardino can give only basic law enforcement services due to cutbacks.

“We need to stop giving people false hope,” Penman said. “We have to start encouraging people to protect themselves. The situation is that bad in San Bernardino.”

Steve Turner, president of the San Bernardino Police Officers Association, said citizens arming themselves against criminals may lead to acts of vigilantism. “For the city attorney to come out and make a statement like that, it’s fear-mongering at its worst and it’s unnecessary, especially at a time like this when we all should be working together,” he said.

Residents exercising their Second Amendment right to own firearms results in crime, according to Police Chief Robert Handy. He said “one of the biggest supplies of guns in our streets are guns taken in burglaries.”

Penman made his “controversial” comment at a crime-focused forum last week. During the meeting, a resident told councilwoman Wendy McCammack that he had called police as he watched a burglary and waited more than three hours before police arrived.

“I can understand how people who don’t live or work in the City of San Bernardino and don’t hear the sirens every night, the gun shots, the helicopters overhead, as many San Bernardino residents do, might not understand the significance when you have people being killed in their homes,” Penman said after the San Bernardino Sun accused him of “preying on people’s fears.”

Telling residents to protect themselves against crime is “the wrong message to be sending to our citizenry,” said Councilman Fred Shorett. “I’m an NRA member and a hunter, but I don’t think it’s our place to be publicly suggesting people lock and load.”

The term “lock and load” was popularized by John Wayne in the movie “Sands of Iwo Jima” and refers to the M1 Garand, the standard issue rifle during World War II.

-

-

REPUBLICANS JOIN DEMOCRATS TO DESTROY SECOND AMENDMENT

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 26, 2012

In addition to surrendering to the Democrat instinct to tax Americans into oblivion, Republicans in Congress are prepared to go along with knee-jerk legislation rolling back the Second Amendment in the coming year.

“Put guns on the table. Also, put video games on the table. Put mental health on the table,” Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia said last week as the Republican leadership signaled it is ready to chip away at the right to own firearms.

Kingston said Republicans are likely to move on more anti-gun legislation after a “grief stage” in response to the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting.

“In the coming days and weeks, we will engage in a meaningful conversation and thoughtful debate about how to change laws and culture that allow violence to grow,” said formerly pro-Second Amendment Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “And every idea should be on the table as we discuss how best to do just that.”

Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Chuck Grassley of Iowa are ready to trade off the Second Amendment in order to make a political deal with Democrats. “You’ve got to take all these things into consideration,” Grassley said.

Grassley also believes the federal government should legislate on societal issues. He said Congress needs to discuss a culture that “tends to be less civil now than it has been for a long period of time.”

Arguing that Republicans must abandon libertarian principles in order “to remain relevant in a country whose views are changing,” the Associated Press cites a Washington Post/ABC News poll published last week in the wake of the Connecticut shooting that shows 54 percent of Americans surveyed want restrictions placed on the Second Amendment.

For statist Republicans, relevance is all the rage. Following the shooting in Connecticut, former Republican congressman from Florida, Joe Scarborough, easily betrayed the Constitution. “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand, for my children,” he said.

“The party is at a point where it wants to have those discussions in public, where people feel comfortable differing from what is perceived as the party orthodoxy,” said Republican consultant Dan Hazelwood, revealing the sad fact that Republican fealty to the Second Amendment and thus the Constitution at large is waning.

Retiring Republican Ron Paul responded to this sudden political sea change on the part of his colleagues.

“Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided,” Paul said after the massacre. “The impulse to have government ‘do something’ to protect us in the wake of national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws. The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters would be dissuaded or stopped. While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings. I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence.”

Ron Paul criticized reaction to the shooting by the NRA. Following the shooting, NRA boss Wayne LaPierre said the state should respond by placing more armed cops and guards in public education schools.

Paul rightly saw this as an excuse to expand an already bloated police state:

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?  We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders.  This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.  School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

Republicans in Congress will vote with Democrats to further erode the Second Amendment. The establishment is now exploiting the Sandy Hook shooting to accomplish its long-term objective of disarming the American people.

No state can strip its citizens of their natural rights if they are armed and if a large number of them understand the principles behind the Constitution and the real reason for the Second Amendment.

-

LEFT NOW CALLING FOR THE KILLING OF GUN OWNERS!

-

GUN GRABBERS CALL FOR MURDER OF NRA PRESIDENT, SUPPORTERS IN WAKE OF MASS SHOOTING

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
December 14, 2012

Following the horrific Connecticut school massacre that left 28 people dead this morning, Twitter began trending with people blaming the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the 2nd Amendment — and not the person with free will who committed the atrocity — for the tragedy.

Some people went so far as to openly call for the murder of NRA President David Keene and any NRA supporters.

Calls also came to do away with the 2nd Amendment and for stricter gun control laws, regardless of the fact that gun control has actually been shown to increase crime and the shooter was obviously not following any laws at all when he entered a school and opened fire.

In addition, Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The state is actually listed as 5th in the nation for gun control laws according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence.

As Infowars has reported before, when our forefathers penned the Constitution, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was made perfectly clear:

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.

The 2nd Amendment is “necessary to the security of a free State”; it is what helps ensure our freedom from a tyrannous government.

Criminals who are dead set on committing murders will find a way to get a gun regardless of laws or amendments. The real threat is the fact that our own government is armed to the teeth. The 2nd Amendment does not only regard one’s personal self-defense, but it speaks to the broader ability of the people to keep a potentially oppressive, out-of-control government and its standing army in check.

The perpetrator of this heinous crime in Connecticut was not following any gun laws when he shot 28 people today.

America is based on the 2nd Amendment. Our liberty and the ability to stay free of total government tyranny depends on it.

The hypocrisy in the wake of this shooting is reaching a crescendo. Calling for more senseless violence and murder will not bring these shooting victims back to life, neither will enacting stricter gun laws that shooters obviously do not follow when they commit these terrible crimes in the first place anyway. On the other side of the world, our government continues to drone strike “suspected militants” in the Middle East nearly every week, killing any innocent women and children who happen to be near a strike zone and they have been doing it for years now; where is the outcry for their mass deaths at the hands of the Obama Administration?

The silence is deafening.

-

DRIVERS QUESTIONED ON GUNS AT FEDERAL CHECKPOINT

Vehicles searched for empty bullet rounds

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 12, 2012

Drivers were quizzed about their shooting habits and had their vehicles searched by Forest and National Park rangers at a checkpoint in Redington Pass, Arizona this past weekend.

Citing the problem of firearms enthusiasts shooting their guns near the main road and leaving empty bullet casings, the feds stopped and searched vehicles to check if the empty rounds had been picked up.

“A driver admitted shooting, but did not have the empty casings. A Game and Fish officer turned him around and told him to pick up his empty rounds,” reports KVOA.

The officials also searched vehicles for other illegal items, including marijuana, alcohol and in one case an illegally killed deer. Four people were arrested on outstanding warrants and officers issued 11 citations, including one for underage drinking.

News reports failed to raise concern about the fact that law enforcement officials used the Fourth Amendment-busting checkpoint to quiz shooters about their gun habits, claiming that, “Many who went through the checkpoint appreciated the enforcement.”

Although the checkpoint was ostensibly justified in the name of combating littering, the fact that gun owners are being pulled over and identified by the feds is certain to stoke apprehension amongst many in the second amendment community.

The checkpoint, which snagged around 250 vehicles on Saturday, was set up in the aftermath of record gun sales and a resurgence in first time gun owners following the re-election of Barack Obama. The Forest Service plans to close three shooting sites in the area, citing the scourge of trash and empty rounds.

Since most of Arizona is federal land, this also seems to be an effort to discourage the exercise of the second amendment in the state. While the feds are hyping the problem caused by empty bullet shells, they don’t seem as fussed about the piles of trash being left behind by illegal immigrants and drug smugglers as they pass back and forth between Mexico.

In September, we reported on how gun owners were being treated with suspicion for merely buying a few boxes of ammo. Commercial fisherman Brian Loftus was questioned by police after being reported for purchasing bullets at his local gun store. The man who reported him, an employee for the Chief of Police, called in Loftus as a potential threat to make sure he “wasn’t going to do something crazy.”

Unannouncedcheckpoints, historically associated with dictatorial regimes, are popping up in numerous different guises across America.

A “Constitution-free zone” which includes areas within 100 miles of the border has been put in place which authorizes US Border Patrol agents to set up checkpoints targeting two thirds of Americans who live within this buffer zone.

Drivers who are asked questions and threatened with searches at these checkpoints are refusing to co-operate in increasing numbers, citing the Fourth Amendment. Some are allowed to go on their way while others, like retired San Diego social worker Vince Peppard and his wife, are having their vehicles ransacked against their will.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

–

BIDEN: WE’RE COUNTING ON ‘LEGITIMATE MEDIA’ FOR SUCCESSFUL GUN CONTROL EFFORT

-

During a press conference on gun safety in Philadelphia, Vice President Joe Biden said that any reports that suggest that he was trying to take weapons away from gun owners was a “bunch of malarkey.”

“I know that’s a word that you’ve never heard before, although it’s now in the dictionary,” Biden boasted.

Biden said that it was important for the media to dissuade the American public from the idea that the Obama administration was prepared to do something unconstitutional on guns.

“To be very blunt with you, we’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media to cover these discussions because the truth is that times have changed,” Biden added, warning that people would continue to “misrepresent” the White House’s plans for gun control.

“The social media that exists out there, the tragedies that have occurred, the Supreme Court decision affirming that its an individual right to bear arms – all give a lie to the argument that what we’re trying to do is somehow unconstitutional, or somehow goes after the legitimate right to own and bear arms and to hunt and protect yourselves,” Biden added.

-

MAINSTREAM MEDIA DECLARES WAR ON THE SECOND AMENDEMENT

Post CT shooting, MSM pushes anti-gun agenda, ignores lawful gun owners stopping other mass shootings in the same week.

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
December 17, 2012

When an armed man opened fire on a crowded shopping mall in Oregon last week, 22-year-old Nick Meli pulled out his concealed carry permitted gun, and took cover in a store before taking aim.

“I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself,” Meli reported of the gunman’s suicide that followed to KGW News Channel 8. Two people died at the hands of the shooter before the man took his own life, but many more could have lost their lives in Oregon that day had Meli not been there.

Yesterday in San Antonio, Texas, two people were wounded in another movie theater shooting before an off-duty officer took the gunman down, wounding him and effectively ending the murder spree before anyone else could get hurt.

As with other shootings stopped by lawfully armed citizens, news about these two incidents has been widely limited to local media outlets and seemingly ignored otherwise. Why the mainstream blackout?

Even though the media has struggled with reporting the actual facts of the Connecticut shooting, all the national news outlets seem to have time to publish are propaganda pieces pushing gun control.

In Reuters this morning, one headline reads, “In Newtown, an Anguished Debate over Gun Rights, Controls,” and the subhead reads, “Two days after a gunman opened fire in a Connecticut elementary school, killing 26 people, several dozen parents and children gathered in a circle at Newtown’s public library to draw something positive from the town’s sudden, tragic notoriety” (emphasis added).

CNN’s Don Lemon used his airtime this morning to go on an anti-gun tirade, claiming mental health issues are secondary to gun availability.

News outlet Salon went to task posting gun control stories and targeting preppers on its site and official Twitter account all weekend, even writing a hit piece on Alex Jones. In “What’s a Prepper?,” Salon’s Katie McDonough notes, “Preppers believe having weapons is just as important as having enough water. They are also deeply suspicious of government overreach, sounding Tea Party-like…”

The Atlantic‘s Senior Editor Robert Wright offered, “A Gun Control Law that Would Actually Work,” going beyond the assault weapons ban Senator Dianne Feinstein has promised she will introduce during Congress’ first 2013 session. Wright calls for a ban on any gun that can hold more than six bullets. Feinstein is not alone, either; USA Today is reporting “the most prominent pro-gun member of Congress” with an NRA “A” rating Senator Joe Manchin has announced the horrific mass shootings have “changed” him. Manchin is now calling for more control on public firearm purchasing power.

MSNBC asked, “Is the American Public Ready for Gun Control?” Politico gave us, “The Price of the Second Amendment,” presenting the argument that the lives of the children in Connecticut are what we must pay to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Anti-gun op-eds abound. The Huffington Post published, “Gun Control and Mental Health Funding—If Not Now, When?” and “The Real 2nd Amendment Isn’t the NRA Version.” The Washington Post posted, “Now Is the Time for Meaningful Gun Control.” The Christian Science Monitor declared, “Madison Never Meant Second Amendment to Allow Guns of Sandy Hook Shooting.”

In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy, a White House.gov citizen petition for “legislation that limits access to guns” put up the day of the school shooting already garnered over 150,000 signatures in just three days, breaking the record for the most-signed petition on the government’s site. People across the nation have also flocked to gun buyback programs to willingly turn their guns in.

Following an outcry on Facebook this weekend, the Discovery Channel announced its show “American Guns” was canceled. Even the National Rifle Association has fallen silent on social media sites, reportedly taking down its Facebook page and not responding on Twitter since the shooting.

As Alex Jones reported on his radio show today, “Here’s the real newsflash folks—they’re coming for our guns. Make no mistake.”

Although our government is responsible for the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that put guns in Mexican drug cartel hands that have since resulted in thousands of deaths, and Obama’s drone strike kill list is reportedly responsible for the murders of nearly 200 children among thousands of dead innocents in the Middle East, the president somehow found the ability to wipe away fake tears at a press conference following the Connecticut school shooting.

In the Newtown massacre fallout, an all-out war has been declared on We the People’s right to keep and bear arms.

The mainstream media has politicized the Connecticut school shooting to the point that using the tragedy to demonize the 2nd Amendment has seemingly become an Olympic event. Where is the supposedly objective media now to report on the other examples of guns in the hands of properly permitted American citizens saving people’s lives?

Declaring we need stricter gun laws and to repeal the 2nd Amendment is synonymous with saying, “We want criminals and the government to be the only ones armed in America.” Because if our legal arms are stripped from law-abiding citizens, the only people who will have guns will be the government and the criminals.

The problem is, the line between the two is so blurry, it’s nearly impossible to tell who is who anymore.

“The lessons of history are numerous, clear and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to—and dependence upon—the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose—either piecemeal or in one sweeping act—those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over two hundred years ago.” — Brian Puckett

-

GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL INTEREST ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO CONVINCE YOU GIVE UP SECOND AMENDMENT

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
December 28, 2012

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), headed up by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has begun a campaign called “Demand a Plan to End Gun Violence”. The website states that “more than 800 mayors and 800,000 grassroots supporters demand that President Obama and Congress step forward with a plan to end gun violence.”

As a member of the coercive network called MAIG, Bloomberg is one of 750 mayors across the nation that would like to see massive restriction of the 2nd Amendment under “commonsense reforms”. Bloomberg has contributed considerable financial donations to MAIG, along with the Joyce Foundation, a globalist Chicago-based non-profit organization started by Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama.

The Demand a Plan website claims that grassroots efforts are assisting the MAIG in their efforts. Yet, no mention of who these grassroots organizations are is stated for public review. What is clear is that with corporate funding and monetary backing from members of the Obama administration through the Joyce Foundation, MAIG is a self-serving prophecy.

The demands of this campaign are:

• Criminal background checks on all guns sold in the US
• Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
• Make gun trafficking a federal crime

The MAIG offer a petition to be signed that would alert Obama and Congress of citizen support for gun control. They also will take down your personal data in order to determine your congressional representative and call you with the information.

Using celebrities like Beyonce, Reese Witherspoon, Jamie Foxx and Jessica Alba to propagandize to Americans, the MAIG demands that US citizens ban together because “enough is enough” and that before more children are killed, more shooting happen at malls and theaters, we must have restrictive gun legislation in place otherwise the dead will keep piling up.

-

-

Last week, Bloomberg released a statement regarding the National Rifle Association (NRA) press conference on the Sandy Hook shooting and gun control. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s top lobbyist, said: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” LaPierre went on to say: “In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty right into our homes.”

Bloomberg’s response was: “Their press conference was a shameful evasion of the crisis facing our country. Instead of offering solutions to a problem they have helped create, they offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe.”

The blame for gun violence, according to Bloomberg, belongs to the NRA lobbyists because “they promote armed guards, they continue to oppose the most basic and common sense steps we can take to save lives – not only in schools, but in our movie theaters, malls, and streets.” Ironically, Bloomberg claims that “we must rise above special interest politics” (disregarding the MAIG as a special interest group) and vehemently declares 34 Americans are killed daily due to gun-related violence.

Since Bloomberg’s numbers on gun-related violence reflects data compiled on total firearm homicides, and does not take into account that the majority of those deaths are gang-related, and committed by violent offenders, there cannot be a blanket statement promoting restriction of guns for average citizens.

In fact, in a recent coercive gun buy-back initiative in San Francisco and Oakland, California, it was law-abiding citizens that handed over their guns to local police departments for $200, not local criminals.

The popularity of gun-free zones as a way to combat gun-related violence would give criminals sections of the country where they know they will be able to commit crimes without much resistance from locals and residents. This initiative only serves to disarm law-abiding citizens. In respect to shifting the psychological temperament of our Constitutional Republic from its foundations to accept more and more Socialism rife with Communist-overtones, this mentality fits the bill.

In Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton claims that the 2nd Amendment encumbers his state from controlling their citizens with regard to implementing stricter gun control laws. Dayton said: “At this point, I don’t think we have an option under the Second Amendment to do what some people are advocating. There’s a limit on what society can do to protect people from their own follies.”

The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence rated Minnesota as failing when it comes to gun control. Dayton would like to see federal governmental restrictions on the 2nd Amendment assist his state in getting into good favor with the anti-gun foundation.

Last week, speaking at the James Brady White House briefing Room, President Obama declared a new Gun Control Task Force (GCTF) headed by Vice President Joe Biden to focus Washington legislatures on studies, research, and proposals proving that the federal government must step in to curb American fascination with violence by rendering the 2nd Amendment useless. This can be accomplished with the complete restriction of the 2nd Amendment, government-controlled mental health services and governmental oversight of violence in social culture.

Bloomberg spoke with Biden after Obama’s declaration was made to “offer [his] full support” for the GCTF. Biden has a long history, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of assisting in the establishment of laws forcing background checks on firearms purchases as well as promoting legislative bans on semi-automatic gun and high-capacity magazines for sale to average Americans.

Senator Bob Casey, once long-time opposed to new gun laws, is now saying that he “would support bills to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.” House Speaker John Boehner stated that he would “take under advisement” the recommendations of the GCTF.

-

THE ECONOMIST CALLS FOR REPEALING SECOND AMENDMENT

Banker-owned publication tells Americans “If you want to be safer, change the constitution”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
December 24, 2012

The Economist has called for “drastic gun control” in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, saying that the Constitution should be amended to ban all guns on a national scale.

In a brazen editorial published on its website this past weekend, the Bilderberg endorsed outlet notes “If America is ever to confront its obsession with guns, that time is now.”

The piece compares Adam Lanza’s rampage in Newtown to an incident in China, where a deranged maniac recently attacked a classroom of children with a knife. Because firearms are banned in the Communist state, none of the children were killed. ” Every country has its madmen” argues the editorial, intimating that living under a tyrannical government regime is preferable because your children are safer.

The article also compares US murder rates to those of Britain and Germany, contending that more guns equates to more homicides. ” America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s” the editorial suggests, without noting that the population of the US is approximately six times larger than that of Britain, and that when firearms were banned in the UK, gun crime exploded.

The piece then calls for the reinstatement of the assault rifle ban and an end to “gun-show exemption” from background checks, before outright calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

“If you want to be safer, change the constitution” the editorial suggests, in a remark that would have Benjamin Franklin spinning. “The great bulk of America’s murders are committed with ‘ordinary’ handguns,” the piece adds, arguing that gun control legislation needs to become all encompassing.

“Handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court struck them down, would be needed on a national scale.” the piece continues.

“Gun licences, obtainable only after extensive police and medical review as in most other civilised countries, would be needed for hunting and sporting weapons.” the editorial adds, outlining a plan for full scale disarmament of the American people.

“Tough police action, coupled with an extensive “buy-back” programme, would be needed to mop up the hundreds of millions of guns that are already held.” the piece adds, ridiculously comparing taking guns away from Americans to sweeping some sort of unsightly mess under the rug.

“If, as seems probable, this is held to conflict with the constitution, then the constitution needs to be amended.” the piece states in a final audacious and tawdry conclusion.

The editors admit that “None of this is likely to happen soon”; too right, not before a full scale civil war breaks out.

Of course, one would fully expect this kind of offering from a British based “newspaper” that is for the most part owned by the Rothschild banking family and a group of shareholders intrinsically tied to the world’s megabanks.

The piece represents the latest knee jerk and unconsidered offering from the corporate media, calling for completely disarming and re-educating the populace.

A week ago Reuters argued that “Obama should treat gun control like LBJ did civil rights”, outlining a plan for gun-control education programs to be initiated in schools.

A horde of Hollywood celebrities have also jumped on the gun control bandwagon, without hesitation and without consideration that the disengaged unreality of mass culture many of them ceaselessly promote could be more of a major factor in such rare and tragic acts of wanton violence.

-

OBAMA, CONGRESS AND HOLLYWOOD COLLABORATE TO CONVINCE AMERICANS TO GIVE UP SECOND AMENDMENT

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
December 21, 2012

Senator Joe Manchin, outspoken gun advocate, is ready to discuss implementing an assault weapons ban after the shooting in Connecticut. Manchin said last week: “We’ve never been in these waters before – we’ve had horrific crimes throughout our country, but never have we seen so many of our babies put in harm’s way and their life taken from them and the grief. That’s changed me, and it’s changed most Americans I would think.”

Manchin, speaking of the attack on the 2nd Amendment spearheaded by Senator Dianne Feinstein which is a bill that will restrict access to not only semi-automatic weapons for Americans, but also clips that hold more than 10 bullets.

Senator Charles Schumer believes that the gun issue is “at a tipping point . . . where we might get something done.”

House Representative Louie Gohmert stood up for the 2nd Amendment by stating: “Well, for the reason George Washington said: a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government, if they know that the biggest army is the American people. Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? … Gun laws don’t work.”

Feinstein said on mainstream media: “I’m going to introduce in the Senate, and the same bill will be introduced in the House — a bill to ban assault weapons.”

-

-

After the Batman shooting, Feinstein demanded that the Clinton ban on assault weapons be reinstated. She asserted: “Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds? These weapons are not for hunting deer — they’re for hunting people.”

The propaganda machine known as Hollywood is adding to the temperament of the social psychology by making images of guns controversial, implying that even the idea of a gun cannot be tolerated because of the Connecticut shooting.

The Discovery Channel has canncelled “American Guns” after perfectly timed attacks came from Facebook posts calling for the cancellation.

One post said: “I know you all have to make money but would Discovery Channel PLEASE consider ceasing to broadcast the show in the U.K.? Sadly your program makes buying/owning guns seem fun, glamorous, even normal.”

Another stated: “Dear Discovery Channel: it’s not appropriate showing the program American Guns now!” Another weighed in: “With Discovery shows like ‘Sons of Guns’, ‘American Guns’, ‘Ted Nugent’s Gun Country’ etc it’s not surprising how guns r seen as acceptable.”

Jamie Foxx joined the crusade by saying that “we cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn’t have a sort of influence. It does.”

All of a sudden, the decades of violence portrayed by Hollywood must be stopped because of this tragedy. And in keeping with the capitalization of this horrific situation, the entertainment community is hanging their heads in shame to sell this new concept: remove the 2nd Amendment for the safety of all Americans.

Obama, invoking emotion to convince Americans that he cares, has demanded that this incident not be tolerated because nations are judged by how they care for their children. He said emphatically that America must change their perspective on the rights afforded us by the 2nd Amendment.

This statement was followed by a promise to use his powers as president to prevent this from happening again.

In Los Angeles, a man posted on Facebook that he would attack multiple elementary schools in his area to attack them in another shooting incident. Arrested on suspicion, the man is being held by LAPD authorities.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck stated that his police department was committed to engaging in pre-crime to protect citizens from potential shooters.

Mainstream media have denounced the massive crowds that came out to attend a Connecticut gun show this week. Those who support the 2nd Amendment know that gun restriction will not stop violence; but rather debilitate American’s ability to protect themselves.

It has been part of the script to convince Americans to give up their Constitutional right to firearms for decades. In 1995, Eric Holder revealed that there was a directed conspiracy to use any means necessary to get US citizens to give up their guns – even if by using propaganda.

-

-

Another angle being taken by mainstream propaganda is to demonize Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy for being a “survivalist”.

Claims that Nancy was stockpiling food, water, provisions and guns is beginning to surface as the philosophy of preppers are becoming a tip-off to a possible mental disorder. Because Nancy was preparing for the breakdown of American society and the installation of martial law, she is being called “obsessed” with gun which led to Adam’s ability to commit this act.

Nancy was teaching her children how to shoot at gun ranges. This is being demonstrated in the mainstream media as part of the problem that resulted in the shooting at Sandy Hook.

Marsha Lanza, Nancy’s sister-in-law, said that “she prepared for the worst. Last time we visited her in person, we talked about prepping – are you ready for what could happen down the line, when the economy collapses?”

Mental health is becoming part of the national debate. As psychologists call for more oversight on the general public for the sake of crisis management with a strong focus on prevention of situations like the shooting that could have been caused by domestic violence, drug addiction, and the survivalist mentality.

-

VANITY FAIR: “LET’S REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT”

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
January 4, 2013

Yesterday Kurt Eichenwald, contributing editor at Vanity Fair Magazine, wrote an article that did not beat around the bush about his agenda: “Kurt Eichenwald: Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment.”

-

-

Filed under politics, the piece begins with Eichenwald saying “gun-rights folks” have consistently tended to “whine” that “it’s politicizing tragedy to talk about” gun control in relation to the Sandy Hook shooting. So instead, Eichenwald mentions several other shooting incidents and proclaims, “Enough. We talk now. And my position is going to be direct: America needs to repeal the Second Amendment.”

While banker-run The Economist proclaimed, “If you want to be safer, change the Constitution” in its anti-Second Amendment propaganda piece a few weeks ago, this Vanity Fair article literally gets right to the point with several arguments against our Bill of Rights and an outright call to do away with our Second Amendment altogether.

Argument #1: “As written [...], the amendment has nothing to do with modern America.”

Eichenwald says this particular amendment has been “twisted and bastardized in ways that could never have been conceived at the time of the nation’s founding.” So the Constitution is automatically time- and technology-dependent?

He makes this claim with the point that Michigan now allows concealed carry in daycare centers. Nevermind that history has shown concealed carriers would actually help to deter a gunman from shooting up a daycare center.

The people’s right shall not be infringed by repealing the Second Amendment or pretending that, because time has passed or technology has improved, it means our rights can now be infringed.

Argument #2: The Second Amendment is “a grammarian’s nightmare.”

While the Second Amendment seems straightforward enough, Eichenwald claims that the actual meaning is “almost impossible to discern,” then notes what he claims is a grammatical issue that changes the meaning:

“Let’s start with the words that now exist. As adopted by Congress, the amendment 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.

“But is that really the amendment? Check out the version of the Bill of Rights held by the Library of Congress, and compare it with the Bill at the National Archives—they’re different. The one at the Archives was passed by Congress, while the other includes the words and punctuation ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. It 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.

According to Eichenwald, the punctuational difference of a missing comma means the first clause qualifies the second. He also states it is “incomprehensible under any normal rules of grammar.”

Again, this amendment ends with, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To this end, there is not a grammatical argument. Comma or no comma, the amendment’s conclusion is the main point here as evidenced by the words of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson:

“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” — Richard Henry Lee, 1788

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, 1788

“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves,…or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…” — Thomas Jefferson, 1824

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, 1850

Argument #3: “A free State” does not mean “A free country.”

The argument here is that the Second Amendment is referring to individual state militias at the time the Constitution was conceived because the “s” in “State” is capitalized. In addition, he believes it is specifically State militia fears of being disarmed by the federal army that this amendment is based on. Supposedly, then, the Bill of Rights was talking about state rights Eichenwald says, “since the states didn’t trust the federal government.” State distrust at the time the Constitution was conceived is worthy of an amendment, but our distrust now somehow isn’t?

Again, this claim ignores the “the people” part at the end of the amendment as referenced above. We’ll get to that part next.

Argument #4: The phrase “the people” does not mean all people. (So it can mean even less people?)

Eichenwald says voters and representatives have passed laws to disallow mentally ill people and convicted felons from legally obtaining guns, so all people having the right to bear arms without exception no longer applies to the Second Amendment anyway.

The bottom line here is that Congress does not actually have the power to contradict the Constitution. It never did. As Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers and others have pointed out, when congresspeople take office, they swear an oath to obey — and are thus subordinate to — the Constitution of the United States of America. They do not have the power to pass laws that contradict it. The only way the Constitution may be changed is to amend it.

Conclusion: We need a new amendment and gun owners should be forced to purchase insurance.

Eichenwald then writes his own version of a “new amendment” to replace the Second Amendment once it’s gone. He claims it should read:

“The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions deemed necessary by the Congress and the President to secure the lives and well being of others.”

Really?

So we turn over the power to the government to determine and interpret what “reasonable restrictions” are “deemed necessary” when it comes to our rights to protect ourselves against said tyrannical government?

Eichenwald also goes on to say, “But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance.” Obamacare for gun owners?

So, to recap, we are to give up our rights and trust the government that Eichenwald even admits in argument #3 the state militias did not originally trust when this country was conceived, which is supposedly what caused the Second Amendment’s necessity in the first place?

Eichenwald concludes with this:

“Some gun owners—some—will rage about this idea, saying that they have the right to protect themselves. Well, so do the rest of us—the right to protect ourselves from them.”

Democide — or death by government — has actually killed so many more people than legal gun owners could ever possibly conceive of. Nearly 300 million people were killed by their governments in the 20th century alone. Governments were able to do so primarily when when their people were disarmed.

The Second Amendment is absolutely necessary. We need to be able to protect ourselves from the greatest cause of unnatural death in human history: government.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

The mainstream media needs to stop inventing meaning against the Constitution and stop helping the establishment dilute and dismantle our rights and the law of our land. The Second Amendment was written to protect us against government tyranny.

Again —

The right. Of the people. To keep and bear arms. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

PERIOD.

Jakari Jackson and I sat down to discuss this article at-length in relation to the mainstream media’s immediate post-Sandy Hook war on the 2nd Amendment last night:

-

-

VANITY FAIR: LET’S REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT

By Kurt Eichenwald | Vanity Fair

As news of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary played out around the country, the mantra from the gun-rights folks was fairly consistent: now is not the time to discuss how the government should deal with controls on firearms. It’s politicizing tragedy to talk about it, they whine.

O.K., I’ll agree. Let’s not talk about policy when it comes to Sandy Hook.

Instead, let’s consider the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre in 1984. Following the shooting of 40 people at that time, gunnies also said it was too soon to discuss new firearms laws; it would politicize the shooting at a moment that should only be about remembrance, you see. So let’s do it now—28 years is long enough to wait.

Or we can talk about the 21 people shot at the post office in Edmond, Oklahoma, two years later. Or the 35 at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, in 1989. Or the 20 that same year at Standard Gravure. Or the 50 at Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in 1991. Or the 14 at Lindhurst High School in Olivehurst, California, the year after that. Or the 25 on the Long Island Railroad in 1993. Or the 15 at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Or the 29 at Thurston High School.

Or Columbine. Or Virginia Tech. Or Tucson. Or Aurora. Or Clackamas Town Center, just three days before Sandy Hook.

Or any of the senseless mass murders that have left behind piles of the maimed and murdered—the elderly, students, children, shoppers, worshippers, moviegoers, diners, workers, and even a member of Congress. One young woman—Jessica Ghawi—missed a gun rampage while shopping at a mall by a matter of minutes, only to be killed weeks later at the Aurora movie-theater massacre. Almost 1,000 innocent Americans have been shot in the last 30 years in these bloodbaths. And at each instance, the National Rifle Association and company try to shame us with this “not the time” argument so that we can’t discuss adopting laws to protect ourselves; eventually, the horror recedes, we move on with our lives, and we walk out into the world never knowing whether our heads will be the next to explode after being struck by a madman’s bullet.

Enough. We talk now. And my position is going to be direct: America needs to repeal the Second Amendment.

Now, before gunnies run for their weapons and belch out that tiresome and frighteningly violent malarkey about prying their firearms from their “cold, dead hands,” let me be clear: I believe that people have the right to arm themselves. The concept traces back to English common law, which is how it made its way into the Constitution. The problem is, for a variety of reasons, the Second Amendment has been twisted and bastardized in ways that could never have been conceived at the time of the nation’s founding. Just look at what has happened in states so far: the Michigan legislature passed a law allowing folks to carry concealed weapons in day-care centers, and Ohio is going forward with its plans to allow guns in the garages at the state capitol. The right, they claim, comes from the Second Amendment.

As written, though, the amendment has nothing—nothing—to do with modern America. Worse, it is the biggest mess of verbiage in the whole Constitution, making its actual meaning almost impossible to discern. We need to get rid of it and try again with an amendment that makes sense.

On the Subject of Grammar

Let’s start with the words that now exist. As adopted by Congress, the amendment 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.

But is that really the amendment? Check out the version of the Bill of Rights held by the Library of Congress, and compare it with the Bill at the National Archives—they’re different. The one at the Archives was passed by Congress, while the other includes the words and punctuation ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. It 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.

Still a grammarian’s nightmare. But notice that the comma between “militia” and “being” has disappeared. Rather than being a set of two syntactically nonsensical fragments, the version ratified by the states is much simpler: a dependent phrase, one that under the typical rules of grammar would qualify the independent clause that follows. In other words, just with the removal of the comma, the relationship between the words in the amendment becomes much clearer.

Unfortunately, the courts have tended to shrug off the difference in punctuation, instead attempting to define the amendment based on the grammatical train wreck passed by the Congress. So, how does the Supreme Court deal with the fact that the version of the amendment it relies upon is incomprehensible under any normal rules of grammar? It punts.

In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia, in what may be a first from the Supreme Court, essentially ruled that the opening words of the Second Amendment could be ignored. They did not, he argued, qualify the independent clause that came after (as would have been obvious if the version of the amendment adopted by the states had been used). Rather, Scalia opined, the words were just a preface, a little bit of throat clearing by the framers before they got down to the business of defining gun rights.

In his ruling, Scalia calls the first half of the Second Amendment a “prefatory clause.” (To get a sense of how grammatically atypical that concept is, run those two words through Google. The vast majority of the entries are quoting Scalia.) The independent clause—about the right to bear arms—is the operative one, Scalia says.

“The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose,” Scalia writes. “The Amendment could be rephrased ‘Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

That’s right. To explain the meaning of the supposed prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, Scalia—who holds himself out as a strict textualist of the Constitution—felt the need to rewrite the Bill of Rights. And this incompetently written phrase does nothing to expand or limit the scope of the amendment, he says; essentially, the words have no purpose. Nowhere else in the Constitution does this supposed blaring of trumpets announcing the about-to-arrive relevant portion appear.

Even with Scalia’s tortured logic, though, the words “well regulated militia” and “free State” are too specific to be dismissed as something the nation’s founders just threw into the mix to be, I don’t know—dramatic? So what do they actually mean?

Well, that’s another problem. The term “well regulated” doesn’t denote today what it did then. It’s an archaic phrase that is the equivalent of “well trained.” And a militia is either an army made up of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers or a military force like the state National Guard that can be called up at any time.

Then, “free State.” Some gunnies seem to translate these words to mean “a free country,” as if it were a generic term. They’re wrong. The word “State”—capital S—appears throughout the Constitution, and it always refers to the individual states that make up the United States. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, each state had its own militia of citizens, and the fear was that a federal army would disarm them. In essence, since the states didn’t trust the federal government not to abuse its power, the Bill of Rights guaranteed that these militias would maintain the weaponry needed to defend themselves against encroachment by a federal army.

So, how does Scalia’s argument about the prefatory clause make any sense? Really, it doesn’t. Using the “because” that he added, let’s look at how the Second Amendment would be written using the modern terms and the structure ratified by the states:

Because a well-trained army of ordinary citizens is necessary for the security of the individual states that constitute the United States of America, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, the first half of the amendment starts to make sense. Not only does the supposed “prefatory clause” have meaning, it actually—as would be expected—serves to define the words that follow. Not in a way I think is appropriate; I don’t believe that only Americans who serve in state-sanctioned militias should have the rights to weapons.

So, Which People Should?

“The people.” That’s the simplest phrase in all of the Second Amendment, but even those two words can lead to mind-numbing debate about what in the world the Founding Fathers meant.

Scalia thinks he knows. Since he tosses out the “prefatory clause,” he doesn’t have to acknowledge that the framers were writing about militias. Instead, to get to his desired outcome, he once again creates a definitional netherworld that doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny. While ignoring the first half the Second Amendment, Scalia decides that he can use other parts of the Constitution to define the second half.

“In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’” Scalia writes, “the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.”

Specifically, Scalia cites freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, protection of rights not enumerated in the Constitution, and the powers of the states. And all of those, he points out, apply to everyone.

Slow down, and let’s examine this closely. Let’s assume Scalia is right—which he isn’t. There are no subsets of people; all members of the political community have the right to bear arms. Just like all people have the right to speak, etc.

A week ago, I saw a man on a street corner who was clearly mentally ill, jabbering something irrational about the government. That man could not be stopped from speaking; like everyone else in this country, he is protected by the First Amendment. And if the police wanted to search the boxes the man was carrying, they couldn’t. He is also protected by the Fourth Amendment.

But if that same man walked into a gun shop, the owners could lose their dealer’s license if they sold him a weapon. Why? Because he is part of a subset of people whom voters and their representatives have decided do not have the right to guns.

It’s that simple. Scalia is wrong because Scalia is wrong. If all people, with no exceptions, have the right to bear arms, as Scalia maintains, then this mentally ill man could buy a handgun. So could a convicted felon. And so could my 18-year-old son. Hell, kids have freedom of speech and the right against illegal search—by Scalia’s logic, my 15-year-old should be able to waltz down to Walmart and pick up a nine millimeter.

But the problem with interpretations like Scalia’s—one long shared by the N.R.A.—is that what has long been widely accepted as reasonable exceptions to the category of “the people” can be tossed aside too easily.

Indeed, the N.R.A. has fought successfully to expand the meaning of those two words so that even those people who have been found to be a danger to others can get a gun. Yes, the gun-lobbying group has fought on behalf of gun rights for people diagnosed with mental illnesses. Second Amendment and all that, they chirped, as if James Madison fretted about arming the type of person often left to die in chains in colonial America.

After the Virginia Tech shooting—the deadliest in American history—Congress momentarily seemed to emerge from its gun stupor and passed the N.I.C.S. Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. When it was introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the F.B.I., which would be paid for by the federal government. Sounds reasonable.

But no, the N.R.A. manned the barricades for the rights of those who can pose the most danger to the rest of us. This, they told legislators, was a matter of defending the Second Amendment.

So the N.R.A. started poking holes in the bill. First, the group succeeded in limiting the definition of those with mental illness to only people who had been tossed in a mental institution or found by a court or other official body to be a danger to themselves or others. Even if a psychiatrist reasonably believed a patient could pose a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that person’s hand. A medical diagnosis isn’t enough.

Once the definition was weakened, the N.R.A. went after the restrictions barring the mentally ill from possessing guns. In the past, anyone banned from having a gun would always be banned, a concept that makes sense given the frequency of relapse among the mentally ill. With the N.I.C.S. amendments, thanks to the N.R.A., that was no longer true.

The key to that was a program jammed into the legislation called “Relief from Disabilities,” which allows even people who have been institutionalized or deemed to be a danger to themselves or others to buy guns again. The way it works is this: sometime after meeting the law’s standards of being too mentally ill to own a gun, a person could petition a court, claiming to be all better. If the court agrees, well, lock and load.

After the N.R.A. wedged that rule into the books, the group then went to its ground game, making sure that the states that had to enforce this law didn’t bring too many mental-health experts or too much proof into the mix.

Take Idaho. After the new law was signed, a group of law-enforcement and mental-health officials—you know, experts—proposed that the courts should be required to have “clear and convincing” evidence before ruling that a person diagnosed with a psychiatric illness was allowed to buy guns again. On top of that, the group wanted what would seem to have been a requirement of the law—a recent mental-health evaluation of the petitioner. But the N.R.A. made sure that proposal died.

Instead, rather than experts, folks who know very little about mental health would be making the judgment call. The law passed in Idaho dropped the call for a psychiatric evaluation and set the standard of proof at the much lower “preponderance of evidence.”

A report in The New York Times last year summed up the results:

States have mostly entrusted these decisions to judges, who are often ill-equipped to conduct investigations from the bench. Many seemed willing to simply give petitioners the benefit of the doubt. The results often seem haphazard.

Hearings could be no more than a few minutes long, the Times found. In one instance cited by the paper, a man who was barred from coming to the grounds of a local V.A. hospital out of fear he would hurt someone was allowed by a court to buy guns again. That could never have happened before the N.I.C.S. amendments. But at least a hearing was held. A number of states still don’t submit the psychiatric information to the N.I.C.S. system at all, meaning that the mentally ill are free in those locations to purchase a MAC-10 semi-automatic pistol or any other gun for sale.

So, while the politicians in Washington celebrated the passage of the amendments as a giant leap in preventing another Tucson, the N.R.A. told its members—presumably the mentally ill ones—the truth: their ability to buy guns had just gotten better, not worse.

After the House passed the N.R.A.-backed version of the bill, the gun group issued a message to its members with the headline “‘NICS Improvement Amendments Act’ Not Gun Control!” And for those who didn’t get the point, the body of the message was explicit.

“In several ways this bill is better for gun owners than current law,” the message read. “Rest assured that if the anti-gunners use this legislation as a vehicle to advance gun control restrictions, NRA will pull our support for the bill and vigorously oppose its passage!”

Rest assured, the N.R.A. got what it wanted. The term “the people” now includes the mentally ill.

What Arms?

Think about this for a second: Most of the mass murders of innocent civilians over the last three decades have been committed by people with guns that they lawfully obtained and owned. These rapid-fire, semi-automatic (and earlier, automatic) weapons with high-capacity magazines and speed loaders—guns that serve no purpose other than to hit the largest number of targets as quickly as possible—were purchased by these future killers as easily as they might buy a six-shooter.

Plenty of gun opponents have pointed out the obvious: that the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the kinds of “arms” that exist today—Washington, Jefferson, and the rest had never even seen a bullet. Musket balls for guns that required constant reloading were the “arms” of the day. The modern bullet—a conical piece of metal in a tube that contained a propellant in its base—didn’t come along until the 19th century.

Concealed weapons? Largely impossible. A robber breaking into a house with a gun? Only one shot available before reloading required.

But that rational point leads some to the ridiculous notion that no arms should be available other than those that existed in the 18th century. The Constitution has to evolve with the times; no one would suggest that television stations and radio networks were not guaranteed freedom of speech under the First Amendment simply because they were means of communication unavailable in colonial times.

Let’s stick with that analogy for a second. Back in those days, I could stand on any street corner and argue for change to my fellow citizens (ignore, for now, the complexities created later by the obscene Alien and Sedition Acts). Today, though, I can’t just start a television or radio station. That’s because there is a limited broadcast bandwidth, and the government has an interest in making sure the airwaves do not become so cluttered that no one would be heard.

So, even though I have freedom of speech, I can be arrested if I decide to broadcast my speech on my own radio station without obtaining a license from the government. No reasonable person could contest that, even though such requirements mean that Congress has passed a law limiting an individual’s ability to speak to as many people as possible. If the absolutist arguments employed by the National Rifle Association were used here—let’s say by the National Speech Association—there is no doubt that broadcast licenses would be deemed unconstitutional by the group and its members.

What does this mean for the Second Amendment? The same thing. The evolution of weaponry—just like the evolution of means of communication—has created a state interest that didn’t exist before. When the Bill of Rights was written, no one owned a MAG5100, 100-round magazine for an M-16. The concept of a mass slaughter carried out over a matter of minutes was incomprehensible.

Just like with the state interest created by the need to preserve the broadcast bandwidth, the appearance of new technology in the area of guns has created a significant risk to other citizens that a government must take into account. Times change. Government has to change with it. The framers never intended to convey a right that gives any American the power to wipe out dozens of people in a matter of seconds.

As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said in 1949, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. We do not all have to risk death at a movie theater or at a restaurant or at work because of a fealty to a bunch of words. And before the patrio-philic jump all over me, just know that Thomas Jefferson agrees. As he wrote in 1803:

Strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.

The meaning of Jefferson’s comments, as I see it, is that the right of my family to live trumps some vague, tortured interpretation of a single garbled sentence that has been interpreted in ways that are contrary to the interests of many citizens. We need to fix it.

The question, of course, is how. Here’s my suggestion.

Because the Second Amendment is an incomprehensible mess, because too many lobbyists have argued that it is an absolute protection of actions and items never considered at the time of our nation’s founding, and because there is a clear state interest in protecting the lives of its citizens, the words must be removed from the Constitution.

But, and this is the important part, the right to bear arms must be preserved.

This is not a contradiction.

Once the Second Amendment is gone, a new amendment, one that takes account of the realities of modern times, should replace it. I think such an amendment should read something like this:

The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions deemed necessary by the Congress and the President to secure the lives and well being of others.

O.K., I’m no James Madison, but that makes the point. The courts, obviously, would have to rule on what is considered “reasonable”—an extremely open-ended word that would allow for the amendment to evolve if, say, someone in the next century invents a Glock that shoots missiles. I don’t, however, think that a case could be made arguing that the possession of cop-killer bullets is reasonable.

But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance. That’s required for owning a car, despite the fact that such a rule could be deemed by the unreasonable as being an impediment to constitutional protections of interstate commerce. And, unlike government, the one thing insurance companies know how to do is assess risk.

You want a semi-automatic assault rifle? O.K., says the insurer. Where are you going to store it? Who else will have access to it? Your insurance won’t apply if someone else is firing it. Have you been trained? Do you have a license? You want another one—well, your rates just went up. And by the way—you have to notify us if you have been deemed to have any psychiatric problems, because we might cancel your policy. Then, just like with a car, people who want to carry around their gun have to have their insurance card on them at all times. And folks who have a gun without insurance? Well, that’s when the government steps in and deems it a felony.

These are just ideas, and there are plenty of others worthy of debate. But, unfortunately, so long as this “Second Amendment” mantra can be thrown into the gears to stop all reasonable conversation, a real discussion will never take place.

Some gun owners—some—will rage about this idea, saying that they have the right to protect themselves. Well, so do the rest of us—the right to protect ourselves from them.

-

GUN CONTROL INCREASES GUN CRIME

Infowars.com
December 4, 2012

-

-

Would banning handguns in America reduce gun crime? After handguns were banned in Britain, gun crime more than DOUBLED. Gun control only creates victims who cannot defend themselves against criminals. More guns = less crime.

1996: All handguns banned in the UK after Dunblane massacre –http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm

2003: Gun crime more than doubles after Dunblane –http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1450338/Firearms-offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html

–

BOB COSTAS: YOUNG MEN CAN’T OWN GUNS “WITHOUT SOMETHING BAD HAPPENING”

NBC Sports broadcaster claims there are no examples of athletes using guns to neutralize dangerous situations

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
December 5, 2012

During an appearance on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Bob Costas attempted to prop up his ludicrous claim that young men can’t own guns “without something bad happening,” by asserting that athletes have never used a gun in a positive context, a claim which is easily debunked.

-

-

NBC Sports broadcaster Costas stoked widespread controversy on Sunday night when he attempted to turn the tragic murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins into an argument for gun control.

Costas told O’Donnell that he was in favor of “more comprehensive gun control legislation” and tried to argue the point by commenting that 65 out of 80 Colts players admitted to owning guns.

“Even if all those guns were obtained legally, you can’t have 65 guys in their 20′s and 30′s, aggressive young men subject to impulses, without something bad happening,” said Costas.

“Give me one example of a professional athlete who by virtue of his having a gun took a dangerous situation and turned it around for the better – I can’t think of a single one – but sadly I can think of dozens where by virtue of having a gun a professional athlete has wound up in a tragic situation,” he added.

Costas failed to name any of the “dozens” of such incidents he claimed proved his point, but we were able to dig up examples of athletes using a gun for self-defense or to stop a crime taking place.

Costas couldn’t name one, and yet we were able to come up with a couple just from a quick Google search, as well as other examples where athletes would have survived attacks and murders had they been able to defend themselves.

- In 2005, Baltimore Ravens cornerback Corey Fuller used his .38-caliber revolver to fire at and chase away a gunman who had entered his home in an attempted robbery.

- Also in 2005, Houston Astros outfielder Luke Scott prevented a potentially violent situation in Houston involving a man asking him for money by displaying his gun.

- As this Fox News article explains, football players are routinely targeted by criminals and armed thieves, giving them all the more reason to be armed in order to protect their families.

- In 2007, Washington Redskins’ Sean Taylor was shot dead trying to protect his family after gunmen burst into his Miami home. “Some wonder if he’d be alive today if he’d had a gun nearby to protect himself that night,” reports Vibe.

Statist host Lawrence O’Donnell then attempted to refute a point made by many in the aftermath of Costas’ comments – that Jovan Belcher could just as easily have strangled or stabbed his wife to death and that he is to blame and not the gun, which is an inanimate object.

“How many home runs could Babe Ruth hit without a bat,” asks O’Donnell, believing that a comparison between a sports game where only a baseball bat is allowed and real life, where any object can be used to kill a person, is somehow applicable or makes sense in any way – when it clearly doesn’t.

Far from apologizing for his ludicrous comments, Costas has doubled down, spouting ever more inane nonsense in an attempt to back up his empty argument, such as the claim that athletes have never used a gun in a positive context, which as we document above is completely untrue.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

-

CNN ANCHOR PIERS MORGAN RANTS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

Piers Morgan owned by pro gun crowd after Twitter outburst

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Dec 4, 2012

CNN anchor Piers Morgan has been bombarded with angry responses from Americans following a twitter rant in which he called for increased gun control and said the Second Amendment was outdated.

Following Sunday’s on air gun control rant by NBC’s Bob Costas, CNN ran a number of segments advocating more gun control.

Anchor Brooke Baldwin stated “perhaps Congress is listening” after her guest called for tougher gun laws, and anchor Carol Costello asked if the incident should “cause us to rethink gun control?”

By far the most vocal, however, was Morgan, who tweeted with regard to Costas’ comments “He’s 100% right,”

“The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact,” Morgan later added.

In between messages about sports and how wonderful the Royal family are, the British anchor then re-tweeted New York Mayor Bloomberg’s call for a “frank discussion about gun laws and gun violence.”

Morgan also tweeted, “America has 300 million guns and 11-12,000 gun murders a year. I think it’s time there was a serious debate about guns in the U.S.”, adding “When Bill O’Reilly agrees America needs more gun control, I think the time for serious debate has arrived” linking to a Huffington Post article about O’Reilly calling for harsher punishments for gun crimes.

Following scores of counter tweets from pro-second amendment Americans, Morgan tweeted “I’d like fewer Americans to die from gun crime each day. That’s all. It’s a debate worth having, however much abuse I need to endure!”

The CNN anchor then posted numerous sarcastic responses to tweets he has received from critics.

Morgan was, for the most part, owned by his critics, including author Carol Roth, who used facts and reasoned arguments in the face of his empty talking points and glib sarcastic responses.

This is not the first time CNN has played host to Morgan’s anti-gun rants. In the hours after the “Batman” shootings back in July, he spent a large portion of his time calling for more gun control.

In response to Bob Costas’ unmistakable declaration of war on the Second Amendment, Infowars.com is launching a new contest looking for the best video taped open letter to Mr. Costas telling him why the Second Amendment, citizen gun rights, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are essential to a free society.

The contest aims to call attention to the media’s blatantly transparent efforts to control and shape public opinion in regards to firearms.

Additionally, everyone is encouraged to mail spoons with notes to Mr. Costas because, by his own logic, spoons are responsible for the rising obesity epidemic that has claimed the lives of millions of Americans.

Join Infowars.com in boycotting the NFL, NBC and Bob Costas unless they issue an apology and renounce their claims against the Second Amendment.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

-

PEIRS MORGAN WANTS TO EVISCERATE THE 2ND AMENDMENT

CNN host lays out plan to disarm American citizens.

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
December 14, 2012

Michael Moore isn’t the only media figurehead openly calling for stricter gun control on the social media site Twitter today.

Not only does Piers Morgan apparently want to straight up take away people’s guns, but he has a multi-step plan for exactly how America should be disarmed.

The host of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight went on an anti-gun Tweet rant following the mass shooting in a Connecticut school that left 28 people, including 20 children, dead earlier this morning.

“Only way forward for America is a national gun policy, same (much tougher) laws for everyone. No assault weapons for civilians, period,” Morgan wrote, before following it up by laying out a plan to disarm the American public. Morgan called for a “minimum 3 references” and “detailed vetting over 6-8 weeks.” He also claimed that no one under 25 should have a gun, and neither should “ANYONE with ANY mental health history whatsoever.” Morgan finishes by stating that “No American needs more than one firearm at home to protect themselves under 2nd Amendment.”

Morgan’s plan, while seemingly comprehensive, leaves many questions. If America were to “ban guns on anyone under 25,” then how would we have a military? Would we have to raise the age limit on joining the police force or becoming a soldier? Who is the person that Morgan suggests we get a reference from? Why would that make any difference? What are the guidelines for his “extensive social media checks”? What exactly constitutes a “mental health history”?

As Paul Joseph Watson reported, “Morgan is seemingly ignorant of the fact that the decision to ban handguns in Britain did nothing to lower gun crime. In the six years following the ban, gun crime more than doubled.” This isn’t the first fatal shooting Morgan has politicized to declare war on the 2nd Amendment; he previously cheered Bob Costas’ anti-gun sentiments following a professional football player’s murder-suicide and seized on the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting to fill his Twitter profile with pro-gun control mantras.

This isn’t the first time Morgan has advocated the trampling of people’s rights, either; evidence surfaced in 2009 that he was involved in a UK phone hacking scandal, publishing stories that were obtained through tapping phone lines when he worked for Rupert Murdoch in the 1990s.

Again, Connecticut is ranked 5th in the nation on the Brady Campaign scale for gun laws, schools are already gun-free zones, and laws made to target gun crimes do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns and perpetrating those crimes if they so choose. The man who walked into a Connecticut elementary school and opened fire today certainly wasn’t concerned with whether or not he was following any laws.

When America declared its independence, the 2nd Amendment was instituted because British rule and its loyalists were trying to disarm patriot militias before the American revolution. That Amendment was instituted to keep this country free from tyrannical governments.

Is this irony lost on Morgan?

Alex Jones gave his own Twitter response to Morgan’s unconstitutional gun grabbing plan:

-

JESSE VENTURA VS PIERS MORGAN ON GUN CONTROL

-

GUN RIGHTS AND GUN WRONGS

Piers Morgan and Bob Costas Don’t Get It

Ed Baswell
Bossier Press.com
December 10, 2012

God bless Piers Morgan and Bob Costas.  Heaven knows they try, but when it comes to guns, they just don’t get it.

Morgan, a CNN host, displayed his ignorance of the American Constitution when he decided to stick up for NBC sportscaster Bob Costas and his gun control rant on “Sunday Night Football.”  Morgan said, via Twitter, “The 2nd Amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles.  Fact.”

I always love it when someone seeks to make colossal ignorance look like colossal wisdom by putting the word “fact” at the end of a statement.  The problem is, in the age of Social Media, there always seems to be someone out there who is smarter than the colossally ignorant.

Author Carol Roth responded to Morgan by pointing out that the Second Amendment “was devised for people to be able to protect themselves with the same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection.”

Morgan answered Roth, and in doing so, set himself up for a Twitter beating of epic proportions.  Morgan tweeted, “Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution—must have missed it?”  Roth skewered Morgan with, “Right next to the word ‘muskets.’”

For the record, this is what the Second Amendment says:  “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.”

Morgan’s argument fits right in with those who are constantly harping about a “living Constitution.”  They say the authors of the Bill of Rights could not possibly have anticipated what the modern world would look like, so the words and ideas found in the Constitution are outdated and largely irrelevant.

The Second Amendment is often the target of this tired argument.  On the other hand, admirers of the Constitution counter that the wisdom of the document continues to endure, even in a world the Founders could have scarcely imagined.

For eighteen hours, Morgan struggled to find an answer for Roth.  Finally, he came up with, “Does it authorize individual ownership of tanks, UZIs, and nukes?”  Roth had an answer for that one, too.  “You had 18 hours to think about it, and this is your comeback?”

But, gun-control zealots think Morgan is right on target.  They like to argue from the absurd.  “If you believe private citizens should not own nuclear weapons, surely you will not object when we ban semi-automatic handguns,” they say.  Their argument is very similar to the argument used by people who say our only choices are between the bloated, insolvent, super-regulatory insanity of Barack Obama or anarchy in the streets.

It wasn’t long before Morgan resorted to whining that it was “amusing to see the pro-gun lobby furiously denouncing my First Amendment rights to free speech over my opinion of the Second Amendment’s meaning.”  This is another tired tactic used by liberals when they meet opposition.  Make the argument all about free speech when no one is seeking to limit free speech.  Morgan believes calls for his dismissal were an attempt to shut him up.

Once more, Piers, the First Amendment does not guarantee you an audience.  It does not guarantee employment.  It does not shield you from criticism.  Freedom of response is not taken away when someone RESPONDS to free speech.  Indeed, to insist that “free speech” requires the muzzling of critics is, in itself, an offense against the freedom of expression.  Even if CNN were to fire Morgan, he could still sound off about the Second Amendment.

A week ago Sunday night, Costas quoted from a column by Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock who opined about the murder of Kasandra Perkins by her boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher:  “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”  After murdering Perkins with a gun, the 25-year-old killed himself with a gun.

Fact.  The gun was not a necessary instrument for Belcher’s murder of Perkins.  He could have used a knife.  Or, he could have used his bare hands to strangle her.  Or, he could have poisoned her.  Or, he could have waited for her in the parking lot and driven over her with his car.

Fact.  Without a gun, Belcher could have stabbed himself to death.  Or, he could have slashed his wrists and bled to death.  Or, he could have jumped off a tall building or a bridge.  He had plenty of suicide options without a gun.

The stupidity of Whitlock’s statement and Bob’s repeat of it tells you just how far  gun-banners will venture out into “la-la land” to try to make their case.

“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today” is an absurd statement.  Whitlock and Costas could not be more wrong.  Belcher’s gun was the instrument of his violence, not the cause.  Beyond that, does Costas honestly think a person would have any trouble securing a firearm on the black market if guns were somehow outlawed?

The gun control fanatics want you to believe there is a National Rifle Association army out there, armed to the teeth and just waiting to shoot someone who cranks their radio up too loud.  They want you to believe most legal firearms owners are itching to turn every trivial dispute into a gun battle.

Decades of hard data speak otherwise.

It was not only WHAT Costas said that was problematical, it was also the time he picked to say what he said that was problematical.  It is doubtful professional football fans, even the anti-gun viewers, were interested in hearing a sportscaster offer his unsolicited opinion on firearms at halftime.

Instead, they probably wanted to hear Bob’s take on what had transpired in the first half, since he is, after all, a sportscaster.  It is also interesting to note that Costas offered his opinion in a forum where he could lecture an unsuspecting and “captive” audience and there was no rebuttal after his “sermon.”

The bottom line here is that the Second Amendment has been and is under ferocious attack from the Left.  Liberals are looking for a chance to pull off another Big Government power grab like they did with Obamacare.  There is a chance that will happen during Obama’s second term.

With that in mind, for the first time in my life, I own a handgun.

-

PIERS MORGAN SAYS HE’S COMING TO CONQUER AMERICA

Infowars.com
December 20, 2012

In response to CNN host Piers Morgan’s attack on American’s gun rights and our 2nd Amendment, including his sarcastic remark at being gleeful in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre, Twitter users are trending the hashtag #PiersMorganMovies, turning popular film titles around on him to make a point about his obvious anti-gun agenda:

Apparently unable to resist the trend, Morgan decided to come back with a few edited movie titles of his own:

Social media users have repeatedly asked Morgan to address issues such as the government’s perpetration of Operation Fast and Furious that put guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels to purposely undermine the 2nd Amendment and Obama’s drone strikes killing nearly 200 children in Pakistan alone, but so far, Morgan has failed to respond.

-

PIERS MORGAN CALLS PRO-GUN ADVOCATE ‘UNBELIEVABLY STUPID,’ ‘DANGEROUS”: ‘YOU SHAME YOUR COUNTRY’

By Noel Sheppard | NewsBusters

December 19, 2012

CNN’s Piers Morgan has been on a rabid anti-gun rant since July’s Aurora, Colorado, shootings that has gotten even more venomous after Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

On Tuesday, he rudely and disgracefully tore into guest Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, calling him “an unbelievably stupid man” who’s “dangerous,” concluding the interview by saying, “You shame your country” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

-

-

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: The AR-15, as we’ve now seen from the last three mass shootings in America, Aurora, the shopping mall in Oregon, and now at Sandy Hook school, is the preferred choice of weapon for disturbed young men who want to commit mass atrocity, can fire hundreds of bullets at rapid speed, if you have the right magazines.

The president of the United States has indicated he wants to ban assault weapons like this. What is your view?

LARRY PRATT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: I think we need to ban gun control laws that keep people from being able to protect themselves. The problem is not going to go away if we ban this or that gun. We’ve tried that. That doesn’t work. Doesn’t even work in England. You have mass murders there all over Europe. There have been mass murderers.

MORGAN: You’re talking complete and utter — you are talking complete and utter nonsense.

PRATT: The solution is for people to be able to defend themselves at the point of the crime and not wait for 20 minutes for the police to come after everybody is dead.

MORGAN: What you’ve just said, Mr. Pratt, was an absolute lie. The gun murder rate in countries like Britain or Germany or Australia, who’ve all suffered massacres many years ago, similar nature, have — there are 35 people killed a year. Your country has 12,000.

PRATT: Your murder rate has — your murder rate is lower than ours, that is true. Your violent –

MORGAN: Lower? It’s 75 against 12,000 in Australia.

PRATT: Your violent crime rate –

MORGAN: They had a massacre. And they got rid of these assault weapons.

PRATT: Your violent crime rate is higher than ours as is the violent crime rate in Australia. America is not the Wild West that you are depicting. We only have the problem in our cities, and unhappily, in our schools where people like you have been able to get laws put on the books that keep people from being able to defend themselves.

I honestly don’t understand why you would rather have people be victims of a crime than be able to defend themselves. It’s incomprehensible.

MORGAN: You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?

PRATT: It seems to me that you’re morally obtuse. You seem to prefer being a victim to being able to prevail over the criminal element. And I don’t know why you want to be the criminal’s friend.

MORGAN: What a ridiculous argument. You have absolutely no coherent argument whatsoever. You don’t — you don’t actually give –

PRATT: You have no –

MORGAN: You don’t give a damn, do you, about the gun murder rate in America? You don’t actually care. All you care about –

PRATT: It seems to me that facts don’t bother you, do they, Mr. Morgan?

MORGAN: — is the right for any — Americans — you would like to see –

(CROSSTALK)

PRATT: Facts seem to — they bounce right off of your head.

MORGAN: No, no, let’s deal with some facts.

PRATT: You’re speaking oblivious…

-

LARRY PRATT: BRITISH GUN CRIME STATS ARE A “SHAM”

Piers Morgan calls the GOA Executive Director’s claim an “absolute lie.” Is it?

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America appeared on Piers Morgan Tonight for a debate with the host. Morgan is a British “citizen” (“subject”?) who has recently been using his platform on CNN to promote the idea that the U.S. Constitution is “inherently flawed” and to advocate stricter, more British-style gun control policies in the U.S. This was Pratt’s second appearance on the show in the past month, having previously appeared in the wake of the Sandy Hook event.

At one point in the exchange (around 11:24 in this video), Morgan says that he “actually dug out the official figures… the homicide figures from guns in England and Wales by comparison to the United States of America going back to 2003,” and proceeds to read off numbers showing that the U.S. has a much higher gun murder rate. Morgan then claims that the lower numbers in England and Wales are “the result” of the “responsible action” taken in “respon[se]” to the 1996 school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland — namely a “handgun and assault weapon ban.”

To begin with, More Guns, Less Crime author John Lott has recently explained that this is a misleading representation of the statistics: Yes, the gun murder rate is relatively low in England and Wales, but it was already low before the ban, and the stats do not show a decrease in murders committed with guns (nor overall murders) since the ban was instituted, as Morgan implies. “There is a difference between levels and changes,” Lott notes. Meanwhile, The Telegraph reported in 2009 that gun crime had “almost doubled in the last decade”.

But let’s look at the discussion that ensued after Morgan’s remarks. (Despite the fact that Morgan had just spoken for 1 minute and 39 seconds straight, he interrupts Pratt after only 18 seconds.)

PRATT: Well first of all, according to your investigator of your constabulary, the data that you’re using for the murder rate in England is a sham. There’s a monumental misreporting of what constitutes murder. If three people are murdered, it’s likely to be counted as one event. And…

MORGAN: What an absolute, absolute LIE! That is an ABSOLUTE–

PRATT: Well, that’s what you say when you don’t know what you’re talking about…

MORGAN: No, you see, Mr. Pratt. No, Mr Pratt. Let me tell you, it doesn’t take very long….

PRATT: But I was just looking at a 2000 report. And these are your own government’s data.

MORGAN: Mr. Pratt, it doesn’t take very long to count 50 gun murders.

As it turns out, what Pratt said does not appear to have been a “lie” at all, let alone an “absolute, absolute LIE!” Quite the opposite.

The report that Pratt was referring to was discussed in a March 22, 2001 article by Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, entitled “Britain: From Bad to Worse“.

In this article, the authors explained that “the violent crime rate has risen dramatically and steadily since gun bans have been instituted,” and that Britain had accordingly lost its reputation as an “unusually safe and crime-free nation.”

To the great consternation of British authorities concerned about tourism revenue, a June CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain “one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.” Declared Dan Rather: “This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness … [but now] the U.K. has a crime problem … worse than ours.”

They then begin to explain that this increase in violent crime — “a trend seen wherever strict gun control laws have been implemented” — is something that British officials have tried to keep “under wraps” by manipulating the statistics:

A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: “Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police.” The story noted that “pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to ‘massage’ statistics,” and “the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed.”

For example, where a series of homes were burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics.

The authors then say (and this is the part Pratt was most specifically referencing – emphasis added):

More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain’s 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as “vandalism.” The report lays much of the blame on the police’s desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.

Britain’s justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.

“American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition.” Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. “With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,” the report concludes.

Is there any corroboration for this charge? Yes. In an article published about five years ago, which is still online at their website, Larry Pratt’s organization, Gun Owners of America, not only references the above-quoted article, but also numerous articles published by the Telegraph between 1996 and 2000 with headlines such as:

• “Crime figures a sham, say police”
• “Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent”
• “Police are accused of fiddling crime data”

Quoting from these articles, They noted the following:

• “Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to ‘massage’ statistics.”
• Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. “The crime figures are meaningless,” he said. “Police everywhere know exactly what is going on.”
• “Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed.”

But that’s only through 2000. Has this problem gone away in recent years? No. An article published by the Telegraph in 2008 explained how “the true level of gun crime” is (still) “far higher than the Government admits in official statistics”:

Figures to be published by the Home Office this week will massively understate the scale of the problem.

Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.

Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.

The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to “pistol whip” victims, or brandished as a threat.

Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm – which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence – are omitted from the Home Office’s headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “These alarming new figures not only highlight the appalling state of gun crime in this country, but also remind us just how poor the Government’s statistics actually are.

“Crime statistics must also be compiled and published independent of the Home Office, and crime mapping rolled out so that people can have confidence in what they are being told about the state of crime in this country.”

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the figures revealed the extent to which gun crime is a “scar on society”.

“It is shocking that the Home Office is in denial about the extent of gun crime by refusing to include offences where a gun is present but not brandished,” he said.

“This is another strong reason why the Home Office should not be in charge of collecting its own statistics, which should be put directly under the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics.

“Gun crime must be treated with the same seriousness and concern as knife crime. Both are a scar on our society.”

In all, there were at least 5,612 offences excluded from the Home Office’s official gun crime total last year, according to figures supplied by police forces.

The true total number of excluded offences will have been even higher, because two of the 43 forces in England and Wales, Thames Valley and Leicestershire, failed to hand over their data when asked to do so under the Freedom of Information Act, and a large urban force, Greater Manchester, provided incomplete statistics. Scotland records gun crime differently.

When the Home Office publishes its latest quarterly crime figures on Thursday, they will include a section on gun crime injuries and deaths, but the figures will again exclude a significant number of incidents.

The Sunday Telegraph’s figures suggest that the Metropolitan Police’s official tally of 3,300 gun crimes in 2006/7, the most recent available, would have risen to around 5,000 if excluded categories had been counted. In 2007, Met officers dealt with 1,678 firearms incidents which were not included in the official tally. The Met’s figures show that offences of firearms possession in the capital rose from 850 five years ago to 1,400 last year.

After the Met, the second-highest number of offences excluded from the official statistics was recorded by West Midlands Police with 404, taking the force’s true annual total of gun crimes to around 1,400.

Similarly, The Independent has reported on a 2007 study which found that around TWO MILLION (2,000,000) violent crimes are excluded from the yearly British Crime Survey totals due to a “misleading” and “bizarre distortion in the Government’s flagship crime figures.”

According to a study reported on by BBC News, The British Crime Survey also “ignores” or otherwise fails to include:

• “The 60% of offences that go unreported”
• Crimes “committed against corporate victims”
• Crimes committed against “those under 16 and adults not living in so-called ‘normal’ households or private homes”, meaning that “residents of student halls or old people’s homes are among those not included.”

That review was commissioned by former home secretary Charles Clarke amid concerns that “public trust in the crime figures had declined so much that it was not possible to have a proper debate about policies.”

Serious question: Does anyone actually believe that Piers Morgan is oblivious to the fact that the statistics he has been citing relentlessly in recent weeks are a notoriously unreliable “sham”?

(Hint: When propagandizing against gun rights, he also tends to avoid talking about highly relevant issues like Operation Fast and Furious, Obama’s mass murdering of children overseas with drones, or the many stories of law-abiding gun owners successfully protecting themselves and their families, or even crowds of strangers, from criminals.)

Further reading: UK is violent crime capital of Europe, The Telegraph, 2 Jul 2009

This article was originally published by TheEndRun.com. The author can be reached by e-mail at the theendrunblog AT gmail DOT com. Information about how to help support The End Run can be found here.

---

UPDATE: On the official blog for Piers Morgan’s show, CNN discusses the Morgan/Pratt debate, and unsurprisingly fails to provide any of the information contained in this article. Instead, they focus on a claim that Pratt made about 970 gun murders in 2011. I welcome any corrections, but as far as I can tell this does seem to be an incorrect claim by Pratt, at least according to the “official” statistics that Morgan is citing. I suspect that Pratt was actually thinking of OVERALL homicides in the UK, as opposed to just those committed with guns in England and Wales.

In fairness to Pratt, in the comment that Morgan originally made which he (Pratt) first responded to with the 970 figure, Morgan did NOT say “gun murders”. He simply said “murders”.

MORGAN: Yeah, don’t be patronizing. 50 murders in 2005. 41, 2009. 39 in 2011. You…

PRATT: No, you had 970. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

MORGAN: This is complete non-sense Mr. Pratt!

PRATT: You’re from another planet, Mr. Morgan…

So, one can see how Pratt could reasonably have been confused. Morgan says “murders” without qualification, and Pratt responds with a figure which seems fairly plausible (i.e., in the ballpark) for overall murders in the UK based on precedent. (The UK had 927 murders in 2007, for example, according to The Telegraph.)

After that Morgan clarifies that he means “gun murders,” and then more specifically “gun murders in England and Wales” (as opposed to the entire UK), and at that point Pratt should have caught on, nailed down exactly what stat Morgan was talking about, and responded accordingly. However, again, British gun crime data is “a sham” anyway. In their blog entry, CNN conveniently fails to provide any links to back up Pratt’s claim to this effect, and instead provides a spreadsheet which they encourage you to use to “crunch the numbers for yourself” — a deceptive thing to do given their failure to explain that Pratt was right (not lying) about the gun crime data being massaged to “massively understate the scale of the problem,” to quote the Telegraph.

Also, again, the overall number of gun murders in Britain being low does not prove that the gun ban worked, considering that the figure was already comparably low BEFORE the ban as well, i.e., the ban did not cause a decrease in gun murders, even according to the official numbers.

Furthermore, as John Lott opined, “I think that total homicides are the most important concern, rather than how a homicide was committed”, and those numbers, according to a chart provided by Lott, show an increasing trend, if anything. Read Lott’s article for much more analysis.

-

TED NUGENT SCHOOLS PIERS MORGAN ABOUT GUN CONTROL

-

TED NUGENT VS PIERS MORGAN FEBRUARY 4, 2013

Jeff Poor
Daily Caller
Feb 5, 2013

-

-

Piers Morgan took his Monday CNN show on the road to a Texas gun shop to continue what guest Ted Nugent called his “crap” crusade against gun rights.

“First of all, I’ve been monitoring your gun debates,” Nugent said. “Go ahead and take it to the bank: You’ll never understand. I really don’t believe you’ll ever grasp — you don’t understand that it’s a simple inanimate tool that tens of millions of American families own that have never caused a problem, never had an accident and will never commit a crime. You have these aberrations that are such a minute percentage.”

Morgan argued that 500,000 Americans a year are shot in gun fighting.

“[Y]ou are so full of crap,” Nugent shot back. “Listen to me. That statistic includes bad guys shot by cops and intruders shot by homeowners, so that figure is bogus. It’s not an accurate figure.”

“Do you care about murders, or do you only care about murders with guns?” Nugent continued. “I don’t think you do — I think you care about guns. I think you’re obsessed with guns. 99.999 percent of the gun owners of America are wonderful people that you are hanging around with here today. Perfectly safe. Perfectly harmless. Wonderful, loving, generous, giving, caring people. Would you leave us the hell alone?”

Nugent said Morgan’s focus should be on mental health and convicted criminals.

” We have a mad-man problem in America, where they’re running around. We have a felony recidivism problem in America. Let’s focus on that together, and leave the rest of us alone.”

-

TED NUGENT UNLOADS: GUN OWNERS THE NEXT ROSA PARKS

Rocker warns ‘we will sit down on the front seat of the bus’

By Michael Thompson | World Net Daily

“There will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed.”

This was the response of Ted Nugent, rock legend and long-time defender of the Second Amendment, when asked what he would do should the government decide to go forward with any of the many firearms-confiscation plans now being developed.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Nugent, who said at the National Rifle Association convention last year that, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year,” unloaded on the recent news that Obama is considering an executive order to deal with guns.

The Weekly Standard reported that, “Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.”

“The president is going to act,” said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. “There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that “it’s critically important that we act.”

“If it comes to the actual implementation of an actual confiscatory directive from our president, then I do believe that the heroes of the law enforcement will defy this order. I do believe that there are enough soulless sheep within our government who would act on such an illegal order but I believe the powers that be at the local, state, and regional law enforcement would halt such an illegal, anti-American order,” said Nugent.

Nugent continued, “You are talking to a guy who talks to more gun owners in more heated and concerned conversations than anyone who lives. These are top notch heroes of law enforcement and military who understand this experiment in self-government and we will not let it [gun confiscation] happen, we will do it peaceful.

“But there will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed.”

Nugent has been a long-time champion and outspoken defender of the Constitution and Second Amendment. He told WND the media narrative after the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, Conn., has been shameful.

“The shock and dismay and heartbreak, then just the specific gun issue, but there is a subculture, dare I say subhuman culture, infesting our government and society that would zone in on hardware and inanimate objects instead of people’s conduct and the justice systems failure,” he said.

He hammered the Obama administration for going after the constitutional right to bear arms, as he said, “The media and the government is hell-bent on convincing that water is dry and we should all reconsider our conclusions about the dampness of H20. These people are out of their cotton-picking minds and they scare Americans who are committed to logic, truth, and common-sense, and real solutions instead of the insanity that I witness from our government and media.

“If you were attempting to write an offensive script to a new ‘Planet of the Apes’ movie, I couldn’t come up with a dumber and [more] unbelievable insanity than our government and our media is perpetrating on the American public,” Nugent said.

-

TED NUGENT: OBAMA’S GUN CONTROL PLANS ARE ‘PSYCHOTIC’

Says disarming Americans akin to ‘engineering slaughters’

by Drew Zahn | WORLD NET DAILY

Rock legend and gun-rights activist Ted Nugent took the Obama administration to task Sunday evening for pledging to make gun control a priority, telling a radio host the president’s plans are practically “psychotic.”

“A person who lives by logic and studies history and tries to implement the lessons learned by history cannot begin to rationally explain the conduct of this president or his attorney general or this administration,” Nugent said. “It is psychotic, it is crazy, it is illogical.”

Nugent explained that many people have reacted in fear, backing schemes of gun control or even outright gun bans in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

But disarming American citizens, Nugent claims, is exactly the wrong approach.

“Obama’s dream already exists, and those are called gun-free zones, and that is where the most innocent lives are lost,” Nugent told Klein. “What kind of monster would want more of these? Because if you ask for more gun-free zones, if you further disarm innocent Americans, you are literally engineering slaughters.”

Nugent is a rock legend with over 40 million albums sold, a New York Times bestselling author and a board member of National Rifle Association.

Nugent claimed that when it comes to debating gun-control legislation, he has “logic and common sense and science and evidence and history” on his side.

But the administration’s choice to create a study panel on gun legislation with Joe Biden and Eric Holder?

“That’s like hiring [notorious child killer] Jeffrey Dahmer to tell us to how to take care of our children,” Nugent said.

He also claimed letters from members of the U.S. military show the men and women fighting and dying to protect the Second Amendment are likewise appalled at the administration’s attempts to restrict gun rights.

Nugent said they “are offended and absolutely insulted by the commander in chief and this move to de-soul the U.S. Constitution.”

“‘You speak for me,’ they tell me,” Nugent said.

-

TED NUGENT AND PETER SCHIFF TALK GUN CONTROL

–

ALEX JONES VS PIERS MORGAN: ’1776 WILL RISE AGAIN IF GUNS ARE TAKEN AWAY’

-

-

LAW PROFESSOR CALLS OUT DERSHOWITZ FOR ADVOCATING WAR CRIMES AND TORTURE

Published on Jan 10, 2013

Francis Anthony Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law.

-

ALEX JONES CONFRONTS PIERS MORGAN IN KATY, TEXAS

CNN host set to broadcast live show from gun store

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 4, 2013

Radio host Alex Jones confronted Piers Morgan as the CNN host continued his assault on the second amendment by recording his show live from a gun store in Texas, renewing the debate between the two that exploded onto television screens last month.

Morgan visited Tactical Firearms in Katy, Texas, a gun shop that was unfairly portrayed as being sympathetic to the Obama administration’s evisceration of the right to bear arms in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings.

Owner Jeremy Alcede inadvertently caused outrage when he publicly supported a ban of online ammunition sales but it quickly became apparent that his words had been misconstrued. Infowars has confirmed that the store is vehemently pro-second amendment.

The CNN host kept the location of the broadcast quiet until today. He will be joined on the show by rock star Ted Nugent and Senator Ted Cruz, both staunch supporters of gun rights.

Jones led a friendly, peaceful protest with other second amendment activists who gathered outside as Morgan was broadcasting his live show. Tactical Firearms is located at 1200 S Mason Road in Kathy, Texas.

“Piers, I’d like to shake your hand in Texas and have a civil conversation,” Jones tweeted earlier.

“When I appeared on Piers’ show last month, I invited him to come to Texas and enjoy some shooting. It appears Piers has agreed to do that, but he didn’t invite me along, so I’ve crashed the party,” said Jones.

Despite routinely acknowledging that it was his most popular interview to date, Morgan has refused to respond to Jones’ challenge for a second debate on the gun control issue.

Morgan appeared to relent on the gun control debate late last month, expressing his annoyance at the likelihood that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s anti-gun legislation will fail.

Indeed, it seems as though Morgan is mirroring Barack Obama’s tactic of having himself photographed shooting guns in an attempt to make his anti-second amendment views look more reasoned.

Morgan previously admitted that he was “standing on the graves of dead Sandy Hook children,” in order to provide a platform for his anti-gun rhetoric.

The day after Jones’ appearance on Morgan’s show, the CNN host and his guests made jokes about shooting the Texan radio host with a semi-automatic assault weapon.

-

-

ALEX JONES CONFRONTS PIERS MORGAN BACKSTAGE

Published on Feb 4, 2013

-

PIERS MORGAN PROTEST IN KATY, TEXAS

-

PIERS MORGAN REVEALS ASTONISHING IGNORANCE IN CLAIM THAT COMMERICAL AIRPLANES ARE ‘GUN FREE ZONES’

Mike Adams
Natural News
Feb 5, 2013

Earlier this evening on CNN, Piers Morgan was broadcasting live from Tactical Firearms in Katy, TX. There, he interviewed gun range founder Jeremy Alcede, Texas AG Greg Abbott, a Texas state Senator and a Texas radio host, among others. During one interview, he asked the question, “Do you know why there are no shootings on airplanes? Because they are the perfect example of Gun-Free Zones.”

Ummm… hey Piers, thousands of U.S. airline pilots are ARMED while flying their planes. Right now, there are well over 10,000 armed pilots flying commercial airlines on a routine basis.

In fact, not only are pilots armed and licensed to carry concealed guns on the flight deck, commercial airplanes also have armed air marshals who also carry loaded guns on flights.

There are men with guns on thousands of commercial flights every week

Far from being “gun-free zones,” commercial airplanes in the USA are actually “gun-defended zones,” and that’s precisely the reason why terrorists are reluctant to stage violent hijacking on commercial airliners in the USA.

The only way to make commercial airplanes even safer would be to have MORE armed pilots and co-pilots on the flight deck. Armed pilots are a strong deterrent against would-be hijackers and terrorists.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Piers Morgan he’s been flying in airplanes piloted by men with guns. He might freak out and try to leap out mid-flight. As is the case with most guns, you don’t readily see them because they are carried concealed. Many people who are protected by concealed guns don’t realize it because they don’t see them. Out of sight, out of mind, apparently.

By the way, armed pilots carry frangible ammo that can take out bad guys without harming the plane itself. Frangible ammo bursts into powder upon impact with a hard surface such as an airplane fuselage body.

The most dangerous place to be while traveling, by the way, is standing in line at a TSA security checkpoint where nobody has a gun to fight back against an attacker. Watch for precisely such an attack to take place in the near future, followed by the government exploiting the attack to justify “arming the TSA.”

-

BEN SWANN: PIERS MORGAN VS ALEX JONES, AND THE TRUTH ABOUT GUN HOMICIDE RATES

-

PEIRS MORGAN VS BEN SHAPIRO

Published on Jan 10, 2013

CNN’s Piers Morgan Invites Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro on his program Thursday night to continue the Heated Debate over Gun Control.

-

PIERS MORGAN VS SCOTTIE HUGHES AND DANA LOESCH

-

PIERS MORGAN ADMITS DEFEAT IN GUN CONTROL DEBATE

Piers Morgan has conceded “victory” to the NRA in the gun control debate as it looks increasingly likely that Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control bill will not pass the Senate. Meanwhile, while Obama says semi-auto assault rifles should only be in the hands of the military, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 7,000 fully-automatic assault weapons.

-

PIERS MORGAN TALKS ABOUT APPEALING 2ND AMENDMENT

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 7, 2013

Following his latest propaganda stunt in Katy, Texas, CNN host and British subject Piers Morgan floated the idea of either amending or appealing the Second Amendment.

-

-

“There are people now beginning to say, yes, maybe we should look as a nation at amending the Second Amendment again, and the reason — or repealing it, because the wording has been so open to interpretation that nobody seems quite sure what it means or what the founding fathers truly intended,” Morgan said on the February 6 edition of his show.

Despite Piers Morgan’s attempt to obfuscate what the founders had to say about the Second Amendment, its wording is direct and unambiguous:

“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.”

The founders and their contemporaries wrote extensively on the Second Amendment. James Madison, known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” said “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that “little more can be reasonably aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed.”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself,” wrote George Washington. “They are the American peoples’ liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it,” advised Thomas Jefferson, as if anticipating the likes of Piers Morgan and the gun-grabbers over two hundred years ago.

Morgan and the gun-grabbers are a throughly modern and effete aberration the founders did not contemplate at the time of Revolution because common law recognized three principle rights of the people — “the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property,” according to Sir William Blackstone. At the time, self-defense was considered a “primary law of nature so it is not, neither can it be, in fact, taken away by the law of society.”

“The second amendment, when presented to the states for ratification, attracted remarkably little attention,” writes Thomas M. Moncure, Jr., in his excellent treatise, The Second Amendment Ain’t About Hunting. “Because it embodied fundamental common law and republican principles, the lack of comment was not surprising.”

How things change. Now we have a parade of idiots, led in part by a foreign agent masquerading as a commentator on American life (which he knows little to nothing about), demanding we chuck centuries of common law and our once cherished natural right to defend not only our lives and property, but also the ability to resist and defeat tyranny.

-

THE LAW SAYS DEPORT PIERS MORGAN

-

-

-

SIGN THE PETITION

-

WHY INFOWARS IS CALLING FOR HIS DEPORTATION

Alex Jones
Infowars.com
December 23, 2012

A petition on the White House website calling for CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported is likely to reach 25,000 signatures, a benchmark that will mandate a White House response.

The petition, which was initiated by Infowars, states;

British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

Infowars is calling for Morgan’s deportation for a number of very specific reasons.

- It’s one thing for an American citizen to ideologically assault and trash the Constitution, although odious such activity would be protected under the First Amendment, but Piers Morgan is a foreigner in a position of influence on prime time television. He is a foreign agent using his power to lobby for the constitutional rights of American citizens to be overturned.

- In response to Morgan’s claim about the First Amendment, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal pointed to a transcript of Kleindienst v. Mandel, a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. It validated an effort by then attorney general Richard Kleindienst to refuse Marxist Belgian journalist Ernest Mandel entry into the country. The Court ruled that denying Mandel entry did not violate the First Amendment.

- If I was on British television every night calling for the Queen to be dethroned and kicked out on the streets, many British people would also call for me to be deported. Morgan is subverting the very foundation of American freedom, the second amendment.

- In joining with others like Mayor Bloomberg to lobby for Americans’ rights to be revoked and their property and birthright to be removed, Morgan is committing a clear act of subversion and should be deported. The fact that he is visiting with President Obama and posing for photos with him is also of grave concern.

- Morgan has ideologically aligned himself with other foreign agents in trashing the Constitution, including synthetic citizens like his CNN colleague Fareed Zakaria, the Communist Chinese government, and the Russian government (via state-controlled media).

- In other tweets, Morgan openly brags about how he is a foreign agent coming to conquer America.

- Piers Morgan’s claim that he had no knowledge of the phone hacking scandal has been described by Lord Justice Leveson as “utterly unpersuasive”. Morgan should be extradited back to Britain to face charges for his alleged involvement in the scandal.

- Public officials tasked with representing the interests of the American people have to swear an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. In aggressively and repeatedly attempting to eviscerate that very Constitution, Piers Morgan has singled himself out as a threat to the liberties of the American people.

Although it’s likely that the White House will be forced to issue a glib response to the petition, we don’t think it’s likely that Piers Morgan will be deported. However, if all the media attention that has been focused on Morgan’s offensive and dangerous rhetoric serves as a reminder that foreigners have no business telling Americans what rights should and should not apply to them under the Constitution, then the White House petition will have been worth it.

Paul Joseph Watson contributed to this report.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

-

THOUSANDS SIGN U.S. PETITION TO DEPORT PIERS MORGAN

LONDON (AP) — Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun control views.

Morgan has taken an aggressive stand for tighter U.S. gun laws in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting. Last week, he called a gun advocate appearing on his “Piers Morgan Tonight” show an “unbelievably stupid man.”

Now, gun rights activists are fighting back. A petition created Dec. 21 on the White House e-petition website by a user in Texas accuses Morgan of engaging in a “hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution” by targeting the Second Amendment. It demands he be deported immediately for “exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.”

The petition has already hit the 25,000 signature threshold to get a White House response. By Monday, it had 31,813 signatures.

Morgan seemed unfazed – and even amused – by the movement.

In a series of Twitter messages, he alternately urged his followers to sign the petition and in response to one article about the petition said “bring it on” as he appeared to track the petition’s progress.

“If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?” he wrote.

-

PETITION TO DEPORT PIERS MORGAN ACHIEVES TARGET FOR WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE

CNN host calls originator of petition a “goon”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 24, 2012

The petition to deport Piers Morgan over his repeated attacks against the second amendment has surpassed the number of signatures required to mandate a White House response, as the CNN host labeled the originator of the petition Alex Jones a “goon” for calling for Morgan to be kicked out of the country.

 -

-

The petition currently has over 31,500 signatures, easily reaching the 25,000 benchmark that will now mandate the Obama administration to issue some kind of formal response.

The petition demands that Morgan, “Be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.”

As we explained yesterday, as a British citizen Morgan’s speech is not protected under the first amendment and his ceaseless rhetorical assaults on the Constitution allied with his position as a prime time host on CNN clearly represent an act of subversion that should be punished accordingly.

After initially joking about the petition to deport him, Morgan’s tone became increasingly antagonistic as the issue received more media attention, leading to Morgan labeling the originator of the petition Alex Jones a “goon” on his Twitter feed yesterday.

In a tweet this morning, Morgan remarked, “If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?”

The Supreme Court decision in the case of Kleindienst v. Mandel establishes the legal precedent for foreigners to be barred from entry or deported if they espouse anti-American ideologies that are anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

In a response to Morgan’s complaint, when he tweeted, “Ironic U.S. gun rights campaign to deport me for ‘attacking 2nd Amendment rights’ – is my opinion not protected under 1st Amendment rights?,” Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto responded, “Your opinion is protected, your presence in the U.S. is not. See Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972).”

While it will be interesting to see how the White House responds to the petition, expecting to see Morgan  deported would be a long shot given that he fraternizes with Barack Obama on a regular basis.

Infowars launched the petition to draw attention to the fact that a foreigner, Piers Morgan, is trying to dictate the internal laws and affairs of the United States. Alex Jones also intended to use Morgan’s arrogance to illustrate that the United States is completely overrun by globalists and that the United Nations small arms treaty, set for Senate ratification in March, hands control of the second amendment to the foreign-run UN.

-

WHITE HOUSE SET TO IGNORE PIERS MORGAN PETITION

Obama administration failed to respond to dozens of secession petitions

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
December 27, 2012

Given the fact that the Obama administration has failed to respond to dozens of petitions advocating states secede from the union, it seems almost inevitable that the White House will also ignore the petition to deport Piers Morgan for his rhetorical assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens.

The petition to deport Morgan for his call to disarm Americans in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, originated by Infowars, has garnered viral media attention and a total of over 80,000 signatures, well beyond the 25,000 threshold that mandates a White House response within 30 days.

However, a brief investigation into which petitions the Obama administration has actually responded to confirms that the White House merely cherry picks those it wishes to address and completely ignores others, violating its own rules.

For example, the petition for Texas to secede from the union reached the threshold to warrant a comment from the administration on November 12 but has still not been addressed 45 days later. Dozens of similar petitions from other states also passed the threshold but have been ignored, despite the total number of signatures for all states equaling well over a million.

In contrast, petitions calling on Obama to enact gun control measures in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, only three of which totaled over 25,000 signatures, were addressed within days.

Other petitions that have received relatively few signatures, such as one calling to digitize federal records, have also been responded to despite getting nowhere near the 25,000 signature benchmark.

In October last year, the White House responded to a petition entitled, “Actually take these petitions seriously instead of just using them as an excuse to pretend you are listening,” with a post by ‘Special Assistant to the President’ Macon Phillips which asserted, “We’re listening. Seriously.”

However, the failure to respond to the overwhelmingly popular secession issue, while responding to others almost immediately, proves that the White House is merely abusing the ‘We The People’ process to bolster its own policy agenda while sidelining any issue that asks genuine questions of the Obama administration.

The administration is using delphi technique manipulation to hoodwink Americans into thinking they are an engaged part of the political discourse when in reality the whole petition process is a fraud because the White House only responds to what it wants to and ignores the questions that the majority of the American people want addressed.

The ‘We the People’ section of the White House website is billed as “your voice in our government,” and has been cited as another example of the government’s drive for “transparency,” yet it has been proven to be nothing more than just another public relations mouthpiece for the Obama administration to promote its own pre-planned political agenda.

Despite the likelihood that the White House will ignore the petition, it is still important because significant media coverage of the controversy has drawn people’s attention to the fact that foreigners are now openly lecturing the American people about their own rights. The petition has also been a key exercise in using the first amendment to defend the second amendment and a reminder that Americans will not tolerate any attempt to eviscerate the right to keep and bear arms.

-

WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS TO PIERS MORGAN PETITION

DYLAN BYERS
Politico
January 7, 2013

Breaking news during tonight’s edition of Piers Morgan Tonight: On the heels of Morgan’s fiery interview with Alex Jones, the man who started the petition to deport the CNN host, the White House addressed the petition.

The official White House statement, via spokesman Jay Carney:

The White House responds to all petitions that cross the threshold and we will respond to this one. In the meantime, it is worth remembering that the freedom of expression is a bedrock principle in our democracy.”

The petition to deport Morgan has gained more than 100,000 signatures, well over the 25,000 required to warrant an official White House response.

–

WHITE HOUSE IS WRONG: FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN’T PROTECT PIERS MORGAN FROM DEPORTATION

By Patrick Howley | The Daily Beast

White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a factually incorrect response Wednesday to the White House petition to deport British-born CNN host Piers Morgan, wrongly claiming that Morgan, who has launched repeated televised attacks on the Second Amendment, is protected from deportation by the First Amendment.

“Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First,” Carney wrote in response to the petition, which has collected more than 100,000 signatures from patriotic Americans.

“President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. However, the Constitution not only guarantees an individual right to bear arms, but also enshrines the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press — fundamental principles that are essential to our democracy,” Carney wrote.

However, as the Daily Caller reported in December, the First Amendment does not protect Morgan from possible deportation in this case.

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto explained on Twitter December 22 the legal precedent that prevents Morgan from citing the First Amendment to protect his status in the United States:

“Your opinion is protected, your presence in the U.S. is not. See Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972),” Taranto replied to Morgan.

Taranto linked to transcripts from a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to allow a foreign journalist into the United States did not violate the First Amendment. The case resulted from Nixon administration attorney general Richard Kleindienst’s refusal to grant a temporary nonimmigrant visa to Marxist Belgian journalist Ernest Mandel.

–

PEIRS MORGAN PROMISES TO DEPORT HIMSELF AFTER INFOWARS PETITION GOES VIRAL

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 29, 2012

On Saturday, CNN host Piers Morgan threatened to deport himself if the United States government does not roll back the Second Amendment.

“Although I love the country as a second home and one that has treated me incredibly well, I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself,” Morgan wrote for the Daily Mail, a British publication.

Morgan issued his threat to leave the country after more than a week of news coverage following a petition posted on the White House website calling for his deportation. The infowars.com petition singled out Morgan as an enemy of the Second Amendment and accused him of using his position as a television network host to undermine the civil liberties of Americans.

We know it is unlikely Morgan will be deported by the government. The purpose of our petition was to draw attention to threats against the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. In the days following the tragedy, the establishment media and certain anti-Second Amendment figures in government dominated the discussion. Media coverage of the petition and its defense of the Second Amendment helped balance the scales.

Morgan’s Daily Mail article argues that the NRA is somehow an omniscient force in American politics. In fact, support for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights represents a powerful force in American politics that overshadows the NRA, a fact Mr. Morgan seems incapable of comprehending. Millions of Americans know that the anti-gun proposals floated by Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Michael Bloomberg and other establishment politicians are gateway measures that will ultimately lead to the virtual extinction of the Second Amendment.

As Gary North wrote on December 22, the Second Amendment serves as a powerful symbol for liberty and individual sovereignty.

The existence of the Second Amendment means the American citizen “still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government’s exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn.”

More than the hunting rifle and shotgun kept for self-defense – which Piers Morgan claims he supports the ownership of – the so-called assault rifle stands as the symbol of liberty and resistance to an over-sized and increasingly tyrannical federal government.

In the Daily Mail article, Morgan once again demonstrates that he is a dangerous enemy of the Second Amendment and all it stands for. “Obama should follow-up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation (as worked successfully in Los Angeles last week). I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one,” he writes. No doubt we can expect Morgan to continue his subversion against the lawful ownership of firearms on his nationally syndicated television show as Congress moves next month to introduce and ultimately impose draconian legislation on the American people.

Finally, on this Friday past Alex Jones and infowars.com posted a second petition on the White House website. It calls for the federal government – including the Secret Service and the Pentagon – to disarm under the mandate of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

“Journalist Alex Jones and Infowars.com are calling for President Barack Obama to issue an executive order amending the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990,” the petition states. “The executive order will establish the White House, all federal buildings and federal events as gun free zones and all federal security personnel will turn in their guns. We also demand the order apply to private schools such as Sidwell Friends School attended by the president’s daughters. This petition is a response to government and corporate media dismissing a call for armed guards at schools following the Sandy Hook shooting. Jones and Infowars.com believe there should not be a double standard. If the government believes gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same standard should apply to government servants and employees.”

We do not expect a response from the Obama administration or for that matter an executive order disarming the federal government. The petition simply points out the fact government intends to keep its massive arsenal of weapons – including over a billion recently purchased bullets – and underscore the fact government as history repeatedly demonstrates poses a deadly threat to citizens, a threat for more awesome than any number of deranged school shooters.

-

DEPORT ME? IF AMERICA WON’T CHANGE ITS CRAZY GUN LAWS, I MAY DEPORT MYSELF SAYS PIERS MORGAN

By Piers Morgan | dailymail.uk.co

December 29, 2012

I have fired guns only once in my life, on a stag party to the Czech capital Prague a few years ago when part of the itinerary included a trip to an indoor shooting range. For three hours, our group were let loose on everything from Magnum 45 handguns and Glock pistols, to high-powered  ‘sniper’ rifles and pump-action shotguns.

It was controlled, legal, safe and undeniably exciting. But it also showed me, quite demonstrably, that guns are killing machines.

Rarely has the hideous effect of a gun been more acutely laid bare than at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, two weeks ago – when a deranged young man called Adam Lanza murdered 20 schoolchildren aged six and seven, as well as six adults, in a sickening rampage.

-

The Sandy Hook massacre brought back such horribly vivid memories for me of Dunblane, the worst mass shooting in Britain in my lifetime.

I was editor of the Daily Mirror on that day back in 1996 and will never forget the appalling TV footage of those poor Scottish mothers sprinting to the small primary school, many already howling with anguish at the thought of what might have happened to their five-year-old children.

It was a slaughter so senseless, so unspeakable, that it reduced even hard-bitten news reporters, including me, to tears.

And as I watched the parents at Sandy Hook racing to try to find their children, I saw the same images, the same terror, that engulfed Dunblane. And I felt the same tears welling up.

Then, 16 five-year-old children were slain in their classroom. Now, 20  six- and seven-year-olds. Beautiful young lives snuffed out before they had a chance to fulfil any of their potential. It made me so gut-wrenchingly angry.

I have four children. And I still remember the blind terror I felt when I lost my son Stanley, then aged two, for half an hour at a cricket match on a field surrounded by a small running creek. I was sure he’d drowned. But I was lucky: he finally emerged from where he’d been hiding – big, cheeky grin intact.

Every parent has a similar story. To even try to conceive of how you would feel if your child was shot multiple times in the head by a Rambo madman at school is just impossible. I honestly don’t know how you would ever carry on with life.

But my anger turned to blind rage when I saw the reaction to this hideous massacre in America.

Sales of the specific weapon used, an AR-15 military-style assault rifle, rocketed at gun stores all over America in the days following the Sandy Hook shooting.

And the country’s biggest gun supplier, Brownells, said it sold more high-capacity bullet magazines in three days than it normally did in three-and-a-half years.

What is behind this apparently insane behaviour? The answer is, mainly, fear.

The well-organised, richly funded, vociferous pro-gun lobby were straight out, on my CNN show and many other media outlets, declaring that the only way those schoolchildren would have survived is if their teachers had been armed. It’s been their answer to every mass shooting.

After the shootings at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado, in July – where 70 people were hit, the worst victim-count in such an incident in US history, and 12 people died – sales of guns in the state rose by a staggering 41 per cent in the following month as people bought into the theory that if everyone in the theatre had been armed too, they’d have stopped the shooter. Can you imagine the scene as 200 people pulled out guns and started blazing away in a dark theatre?

The gun-lobby logic dictates that the only way to defend against gun criminals is for everyone else to have a  gun, too. Teachers, nurses, clergymen, shop assistants, cinema usherettes – everyone must be armed.

To me, this is a warped, twisted logic that bears no statistical analysis and makes no sense. Do you fight drug addiction with more cocaine? Alcoholism with more Jack Daniel’s? Of course not.

But woe betide anyone who dares suggest this. In the days following Sandy Hook, I interviewed a number of gun-rights representatives and grew increasingly furious as they  trotted out these hackneyed old  disingenuous lines.

Finally, I erupted at one of them, a man with the unfortunate name of Larry Pratt, who runs the Gun Owners of America lobbying group.

‘You,’ I eventually declared, ‘are an unbelievably stupid man.’

And that was the catalyst for the full wrath of the gun lobby to crash down on my British head.

A petition was created on an official White House website demanding my deportation for ‘attacking the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution’. This, of course, is the one that alludes to an American’s ‘right to bear arms’.

The concerted effort to get me thrown out of the country – which has so far gathered more than 90,000 signatures – struck me as rather ironic, given that by expressing my opinion I was merely exercising my rights, as a legal US resident, under the 1st Amendment, which protects free speech.

But no matter.

This gun debate is an ongoing war of verbal attrition in America – and I’m just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I’m British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget – Special Relationship notwithstanding.

It’s no exaggeration to say that America’s unique fondness for guns pretty much got cemented by hatred of us Brits and the War of Independence. But the main reason the more fervent gun-rights activists give is a fear of their own US federal government using its army to impinge on their freedom. The problem is that America’s historical love of guns means the country is now awash with them – and with gun death.

The bare statistics say it all. There are 311 million people in the United States and an estimated 300 million guns in circulation. (Between four million and seven million new firearms are manufactured in the US every year.)

Take out children from the population figure, and that’s comfortably more than one gun per person.

Each year, on average, 100,000 Americans are shot with a gun. Of these, over 31,000 are fatalities, 11,000 of them murders and 18,000 suicides. More than a million people have been killed with guns in America since 1968 when Dr Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated.

The US firearm murder rate is 19.5 times higher than the 22 next most populous, high-income countries in the world. And a staggering 80 per cent of firearm deaths in the combined 23 countries occur in America.

My campaign against America’s gun laws didn’t begin two weeks ago when Adam Lanza committed his carnage. It began a week before I went on air for CNN, in January 2011. A US Congresswoman called Gabby Giffords was shot in the head by another deranged young man at an outdoor event in Tucson, Arizona, and miraculously survived. Six others, including a nine-year-old girl, were murdered.

It was a horrifying incident but, to my astonishment, nothing happened as a result. A week or so of debate and furrowed brows, and everyone went on with life.

Since then, I’ve watched in despair as the volume of gun-related massacres has escalated. (Six of America’s 12 worst-ever mass shootings have occurred since 2007, when I first came to America to work as a judge on America’s Got Talent.) And I’ve been shocked at how America’s politicians have been cowed into a woeful, shameful virtual silence by the gun lobbyists and the all-powerful National Rifle Association in particular.

The NRA targets pro-gun-control politicians on every rung of the political system and spends a fortune ensuring they either don’t get elected or get unelected. It’s been a concerted, ruthless and highly successful campaign. And to those, like me, who stand up to them, they sneer: ‘You don’t know anything about guns. Keep quiet.’

Well, I do know a bit about guns, actually. My brother’s a lieutenant colonel in the British Army and has served tours of duty in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. My sister married a colonel who trained Princes William and Harry at Sandhurst. My uncle was a major in the Green Howards.

My argument with guns is not based on some universal, pathological hatred of them. I’m not a pacifist. Guns win necessary wars and defeat tyrannical regimes like the Nazis.

Nor do I have a problem with those who use guns for hunting or for sport. I also understand, and respect, how there is an inherent national belief in America, based on their understanding of the 2nd Amendment, that everyone should be allowed to have a gun at home for the purposes of self-defence.

But where I have a big problem is when the unfortunately ambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment is twisted to mean that anyone in America can have any firearm they want, however powerful, and in whatever quantity they want.

This has led to the absurd scenario where I can’t legally buy six packets of Sudafed in an American supermarket, or a chocolate Kinder egg, or various French cheeses, because they are all deemed a health risk.

Yet I can saunter into Walmart – America’s version of Tesco – and help myself to an armful of AR-15 assault rifles and magazines that can carry up to 100 bullets at a time.

That weapon has now been used in the last four mass shootings in America – at the Aurora cinema, a shopping mall in Oregon, Sandy Hook school, and the most recent, a dreadful attack on firemen in New York.

The AR-15 looks and behaves like a military weapon and should be confined to the military and police force. No member of the public has any need for a death machine that can fire up to six rounds a second when modified and can clear a 100-bullet magazine (as used in Aurora) within a minute.

The only apparent reason anyone seems to offer up is that using such weapons is ‘fun’. One gun-rights guy I interviewed last week even said admiringly that the AR-15 was ‘the Ferrari of guns’.

Well, I’m sorry, but ‘fun’ is just not a good enough excuse any more. Not when children are being killed by gunfire all over America.

President Obama seems to agree it’s time for action. After four years of doing precisely nothing about  gun control in America, he finally snapped after Sandy Hook and said he’s keen to pursue a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And he wants a closure of the absurd loopholes that mean 40 per cent of all gun sales in America currently have no background checks whatsoever – meaning any crackpot or criminal can get their hands on whatever they want.

These measures, which will be resisted every step of the way, won’t stop all gun crime. Nor all mass shootings. There are too many guns out there, and too many criminals and mentally deranged people keen to use them. But the measures will at least make a start. And they will signal an intent to tackle this deadly scourge on American life.

Obama should follow up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation (as worked successfully in Los Angeles last week). I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one.

Either you ban these assault weapons completely, and really mean it, or you don’t.

He should also significantly increase federal funding for mental health treatment for all Americans who need it. It’s the lethal cocktail of mental instability and ready gun availability that is the key component in almost every American mass shooting.

Nor do I think Hollywood or makers of violent video games should avoid any responsibility – their graphic images can surely only twist an already twisted mind.

I will not stop in my own efforts to keep the gun-control debate firmly in people’s minds, however much abuse I’m subjected to.

And let me say that for every American who has attacked me on Twitter, Facebook or Fox News this past week, I’ve had many more thank me and encourage me to continue speaking out – including one lady who came up to me in Manhattan just before Christmas, grabbed my arm, and said firmly: ‘I’m with you. A lot of us are with you.’

I genuinely think Sandy Hook will act as a tipping point. A Gallup poll released on Thursday showed that  58 per cent of Americans now support new gun-control laws, up from 43 per cent in 2011. That’s a big jump.

The ‘more guns, less crime’ argument is utter nonsense. Britain, after Dunblane, introduced some of the toughest gun laws in Europe, and we average just 35 gun murders a year.

Japan, which has the toughest gun control in the world, had just TWO in 2006 and averages fewer than 20 a year. In Australia, they’ve not had a mass shooting since stringent new laws were brought in after 35 people were murdered in the country’s worst-ever mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996. Fewer guns equals less gun murder. This is not a ‘pinko liberal’ hypothesis. It’s a simple fact.

In conclusion, I can spare those Americans who want me deported a lot of effort by saying this: If you don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me.

Although I love the country as a second home and one that has treated me incredibly well, I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself.

-

PIERS MORGAN: USE MACHINE GUNS TO “TAKE OUT” CRITICS

-

-

Establishment attempts to make firearms ownership taboo

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 22, 2013

CNN host Piers Morgan has built his case for gun control on an apparent concern for victims of gun violence. However, that concern was not evident when he told an interviewer of his desire to see his critics taken out with machine guns.

Asked about how he would treat his critics if they were appearing on Britain’s Got Talent, a show on which Morgan appeared as a judge, the CNN host remarked, “I’d replace the buzzers with machine guns and just take them all out and do the public a massive favor.”

Morgan’s penchant for mowing people down with machine guns, even in the context of a joke, is somewhat rich given that he has spent weeks pontificating about the need to ban semi-automatic assault rifles on his live CNN show.

This is by no means the first time that Morgan has joked about murdering his ideological adversaries while simultaneously brow-beating second amendment advocates about the need to ban guns in order to prevent shootings.

While debating Morgan’s contentious interview with Alex Jones earlier this month, author Buzz Bissinger remarked, “But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for? The only reason I think you’d need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally and pop him.”

“I’d love to see that,” responded Huffington Post’s Abby Huntsman, adding, “In uniform.”

“I’ll borrow my brother’s uniform,” Morgan responded.

The CNN host’s supporters on Twitter later echoed Morgan’s violent tendencies by calling for Alex Jones to be shot dead.

Morgan caused further controversy when he admitted in a tweet that he was “standing on the graves of dead Sandy Hook children,” in order to push his gun control agenda.

-

BRITS PETITION GOVERNMENT: WE DON’T WANT PIERS MORGAN BACK

Clarkson: ‘It took us 40 years to get rid of him’

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 26, 2012

Brits have responded to the petition calling on the White House to deport Piers Morgan for his anti-second amendment stance by lodging a petition of their own with UK Home Secretary Theresa May entitled ‘Stop Piers Morgan from being deported back to the UK from America’.

The original petition to deport Morgan for his unconstitutional rhetoric following the Sandy Hook school shooting has now achieved almost 70,000 signatures, well beyond the 25,000 required to mandate a White House response.

However, a counter-petition which features on the change.org website calls on the UK government to prevent Morgan from returning to the UK.

“We got rid of him once and why should we have to suffer again. The Americans wanted him so they should put up with him. We washed our hands of him a long time ago,” the petition reads.

The petition is authored by a user named “hackergate” and includes a YouTube video of the former News of the World editor testifying before the Leveson inquiry into the phone hacking scandal.

Morgan has been accused of being complicit in the scandal but only appeared in front of the inquiry via a video link from the United States. The CNN host’s claim that he had no knowledge of the phone hacking scandal was described by Lord Justice Leveson as “utterly unpersuasive”.

Morgan was hired by CNN as a prime time host despite the fact that he was fired from his editorial position at the Daily Mirror for publishing a fake news story in May 2004.

British television personality Jeremy Clarkson has also weighed in on the controversy over Morgan by tweeting a plea for him to remain in America.

“Americans. It took us 40 years to get rid of Piers Morgan. Please don’t send him back,” remarked Clarkson.

Morgan himself addressed the controversy, which quickly turned into a viral story after the petition was first lodged by Infowars.com, commenting yesterday, “Merry Christmas! Even to those who want me deported.”

As Infowars documented in a previous article, Morgan’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a U.S. citizen.

Legal precedent suggests that Morgan could be deported from the United States for openly engaging in subversion by calling for Americans to be disarmed, but the fact that he has cultivated a friendly personal relationship with Barack Obama, something which denigrates his supposed impartiality on CNN further, makes that outcome a long shot.

-

PIERS MORGAN EMBELLISHES GANG-RELATED SHOOTOUT TO PUSH GUN CONTROL AGENDA

CNN host hastily exploited incident before details were known

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 22, 2013

CNN host Piers Morgan embarrassingly exploited what soon turned out to be a gang-related shootout to push his agenda for gun control, completely embellishing an altercation at Lone Star College near Houston.

As soon as news emerged that there had been a shooting, Morgan, who previously admitted that he was “standing on the graves of dead Sandy Hook children,” in order to provide a platform for his anti-gun rhetoric, went into overdrive on Twitter, screeching that there were “horrific scenes” on the campus and that there were, “Bodies on ground, others being stretchered away,” portraying the scene as a massacre despite news footage showing only one or two injured people.

Despite there being scant information about the nature of the shooting at the time, Morgan persisted with his fearmongering, using it to take a sideswipe at advocates of armed officials in schools by tweeting,”Lone Star College has its own armed police officers.”

The CNN host even took the opportunity to lambast Rick Perry, by remarking, “Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, where this latest shooting happened, wants MORE guns in schools.”

As soon as it began to emerge that the campus shooting was not a planned attack and in fact was likely to be an altercation between two gangbangers, Morgan dropped the issue.

At time of press, the four people involved in the shooting sustained injuries but no deaths were reported.

“Witnesses said they saw two men get into an argument in the college’s library, and both pulled out guns and began firing on each other, NBC affiliate KPRC Local 2 reported. Several law enforcement officials said the incident may have been gang-related,” NBC News reported.

The incident clearly does not fit with the recent narrative of mass shootings being linked with semi-automatic weapons, but the facts didn’t stop Morgan from rushing to virtually celebrate the shooting in what amounted to a pathetic attempt to bolster his anti-second amendment crusade.

-

-

FACEBOOK BANNING GUN OWNERS EN MASSE

-

ALEX JONES: AFTER THE CT SHOOTING, THE FIX IS IN, THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!

-

STATE RUN NEWS STALKS CT SHOOTING VICTIMS

-

Prozac and its family of psychotropic drugs are at the heart of 99% off mass murder shootings. The media also hypes victim disarmament zones like public brainwashing centers as a great place for Prozac and Zoloft heads to kill. They always go to the place with no guns so they can take there time. Guns don’t kill people kook psychologist pushing SSRI do.

-

-

SCHOOL SHOOTER ADAM LANZA LIKELY ON MEDS; LABELED AS HAVING ‘PERSONALITY DISORDER’

Gun control? We need medication control!

Mike Adams
Natural News
December 15, 2012

In mass shootings involving guns and mind-altering medications, politicians immediately seek to blame guns but never the medication. Nearly every mass shooting that has taken place in America over the last two decades has a link to psychiatric medication, and it appears today’s tragic event is headed in the same direction.

According to ABC News, Adam Lanza, the alleged shooter, has been labeled as having “mental illness” and a “personality disorder.” These are precisely the words typically heard in a person who is being “treated” with mind-altering psychiatric drugs.

One of the most common side effects of psychiatric drugs is violent outbursts and thoughts of suicide.

Note: The shooter was originally mid-identified as Ryan Lanza but has now been corrected to Adam Lanza.

The Columbine High School shooters were, of course, on psychiatric drugs at the time they shot their classmates in 1999. Suicidal tendencies and violent, destructive thoughts are some of the admitted behavioral side effects of mind-altering prescription medications.

No gun can, by itself, shoot anyone. It must be triggered by a person who makes a decision to use it. And while people like NY Mayor Bloomberg are predictably trying to exploit the deaths of these children to call for guns to be stripped from all law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong whatsoever, nobody calls for medication control.

Why is that? After all, medication alters the mind that controls the finger that pulls the trigger. The saying that “guns kill people” is physically impossible. People kill other people, and as we all learned from watching the O.J. Simpson trial, you don’t need a gun to commit murder.

We should be outlawing psychiatric medications, not an inanimate piece of metal

If there is to be any legitimate debate on so-called “gun control” in the aftermath of this shooting, the only idea that makes any sense at all would be to restrict gun purchases by people currently taking psychiatric medications. But even that restriction would of course be abused by the government to take guns away from perfectly healthy, law-abiding citizens who innocently seek treatment for mild depression and who honestly have no clue that psychiatric drugs can cause violent behavior.

A far better solution here would be to outlaw psychiatric drugs