Archive
More On HOW The UN Gun Treaty CAN and WILL Be Enforced If We Don’t UN-SIGN IT.
(This is posted in front of the UN Headquarters. How can ANYONE question their objectives?)
Here’s information CONFIRMING what I’ve been yelling from the rooftops about the UN Gun Grab. They CAN enforce it, and they WILL enforce it, whether we like it or not. It will NOT NEED SENATE RATIFICATION.
The ONLY way we’re going to get rid of this trash it if a future President, who will actually abide by the Oath they took, UN-SIGNS it. And everyone had best keep a close eye on the Clintons as they relentlessly attempt to relinquish our Veto Rights at the UN. With 152 member Nations AGAINST our Second Amendment, you had better believe they intend to disarm Americans. The Clintons sold us out a LONG TIME AGO in order to secure their UN Thrones.
I suggest all the so-called “Gun RIghts Activists” stop their nay-saying about this and do some homework of their own some time. I’m not going to listen to “This will never happen here! It has to be ratified by the Senate” BULLSHIT. To those so-called “gun rights activists” I know who’ve been telling me I’m wrong on this, you are not my Friends anymore unless you apologize to me, correct yourselves and start calling this what it is. Many of you have a MUCH larger audience than I and you should be helping with this instead of nay-saying it. You know who you are. Apologize or STAY AWAY FROM ME.
I’ve done plenty of analysis on this issue. I’ve read the IDDRS, which is one of the most frightening documents I’ve ever laid eyes on. I’ve read the 1968 Gun Ban, and I’m very well versed on how treaties are ratified and how they can be enforced without ratification. THIS WILL HAPPEN.
I know HOW they’re going to do it. EXACTLY HOW. The tracks were laid by them a LONG time ago and they’ve got a very detailed plan that leaves this Analytical Strategist in awe. For now, they’re just trying to do it the “easy” way. WHEN they decide it must happen and the time is ripe, Americans are in for one HELL of a fight, and one HELL of a nightmare. They WILL kill those of us who show signs of non-compliance. I suggest people wake up and start calling this what it is.
At the UN Headquarters: Notice it says “Disarm OR Perish”! Not disarm and perish!
Here are some of my previous comments on this issue
Here’s more information:
UN Arms Treaty will be menace to US for years to come
Published September 25, 2013
Secretary of State John Kerry’s signature of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Wednesday was a serious error, one that will have far-reaching consequences for American foreign policy and American sovereignty. Those consequences will be even worse because the Senate, which has signaled many times that it is opposed to the treaty, will likely have no real opportunity to reject it.
It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”
In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified.
This rule is an old one, and it used to make some sense. It would be dishonorable to sign a treaty with another country, do all the things prohibited by the treaty, and then ratify it. But that was a different era.
Since the U.N. has already defined gun control as a human right, they will not have to work very hard to make it part of the treaty.
Today, treaties are not just about international conduct. They seek to regulate how we raise our children, how we treat the disabled, and how we manage our firearms market.
As a result, the old requirement not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty has become a way to evade the need for Senate ratification. And in the case of the Arms Trade Treaty, the problem is even worse. The administration will argue that it already has all the powers it needs to enforce the treaty.
In the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Arms Export Control Act, Congress gave the Executive Branch the power to control both the import and export of firearms – indeed, of weapons of all kinds. This power is virtually unfettered. All the president has to do is to assert that a particular firearm is not suitable for “sporting” purposes and, under the 1968 Act, he can ban its import.
We have recently seen an example of this with the executive actions banning the import of Korean War vintage M1 Garand rifles, which the White House justified as a gun control measure. And since many U.S. gun manufacturers rely on imported parts and components, or financing and insurance from abroad, the Treaty also gives other countries new opportunities to affect the U.S. firearms market.
But it is the Treaty’s vague norms that pose the biggest long-term problem. At the heart of the Treaty are terms like “international humanitarian law” and “international human rights law.” By committing itself to uphold these terms, the U.S. is binding itself to meet requirements that it does not define. That will affect not only our domestic firearms market but our foreign policy.
Over the coming years, the treaty’s proponents will seek to expand what those vague terms include. Since the U.N. has already defined gun control as a human right, they will not have to work very hard to make it part of the treaty. By signing the Treaty, the U.S. has tied itself to a conveyor belt: it is no longer in control of where it is going.
Opponents of the treaty are not powerless. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and other colleagues, along with Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) in the House, have made it clear that Congress is deeply skeptical about the treaty.
They can continue to voice their opposition, including by calling for hearings. In the end, a U.S. president can ‘unsign’ the treaty.
All of those actions are wise responses to a serious error by the Obama administration, one that will be a menace for years to come.
Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D
. is a Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations at the Heritage Foundation
PROOF: Government PLANNED Monday’s DC Naval Base Mass Murder
Video Courtesy of D.Simons TPC Hat tip D.SImons. Thank you very much.
“The ends justify the means.”
RIGHT, you GOD DAMNED MARXIST BEASTS?
Very well. As long as we understand the “rules”.
Colorado Sheriff Refuses To Enforce Gun-Control Bills
TWG: Very good. Each and every thinking citizen should be talking with their Sheriff in order to find out where they stand on these unconstitutional and unenforceable infringements. Thank God we still have a few good one’s wearing the badges. Talk with your Sheriff’s. Ask them if they intend to uphold the Oath they took when they accepted their badges.
-
Associated Press/Brennan Linsley – Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, center, backed by a group of fellow sheriffs, testifies against proposed gun control legislation in the Colorado Legislature, at the State …more
GREELEY, Colo. (AP) — A Colorado sheriff says he won’t enforce two aggressive gun-control measures waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper.
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke told The Greeley Tribune (http://bit.ly/141Ee2z ) that Democratic lawmakers are scrambling after recent mass shootings, and the bills are “feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable.”
One bill expands background checks on firearm purchases, and the other limits ammunition magazines to 15 rounds. The 15-round magazine limit would make Colorado the first state outside the East Coast to ratchet back gun rights after last year’s shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn.
Colorado’s gun-control debates have been closely watched because of the state’s gun-loving frontier heritage and painful history of mass shootings, most recently last summer’s movie theater shooting that killed 12.
The sheriff said he “won’t bother enforcing” the laws because it would be impossible for officers to keep track of how the requirements are being met by gun owners — and he and other sheriffs are considering suing the state to block the measures if they are signed into law.
Cooke said the bill passed Friday requiring a $10 background check to legally transfer a gun wouldn’t keep firearms out of the hands of those who use them for violence.
“Criminals are still going to get their guns,” he said.
The sheriff’s office did not immediately return calls left by The Associated Press.
The magazine-limit bill passed earlier in the week will technically ban all magazines because of a provision that outlaws any magazine that can be altered, he said, adding that all magazines can be altered to a higher capacity.
Expanded checks have been a top priority for Hickenlooper, who called for the proposal during his State of the State address in January.
Cooke oversees law enforcement in Colorado’s third-largest county by area. His jurisdiction includes its largest city, Greeley, and large swaths of farmland and areas of oil and gas production.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/colo-sheriff-refuses-enforce-gun-control-bills-024608155.html
Gun Grabbing Giffords – Gabby Giffords’ Husband Buys AR-15
TWG: Well, well, well. Looky here. Gun grabbing, opportunistic asshole Mark Kelly, out buying firearms as his latest stunt so he can try to take them away from the law-abiding citizens of this nation. What is this prick going to pull next? Mass murder, to prove how easy it would be with a gun?
***************************************
by AWR Hawkins 9 Mar 2013, 3:28 PM PDT
Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.
Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson, Arizona.
CONTINUE READING: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/09/Gabby-Giffords-Husband-Buys-AR-15-Announces-He-s-Not-Keeping-It-After-News-Leaks-Out
Smoke a Joint, Get an ObamaPass, Sell a Gun to a Joint Smoker, Go To Jail
TWG: This article touches on some of the concerns I’ve shared over the past few years with regard to the MMJ (Medical Marijuana) participants, our Veterans and gun control. The MMJ scheme and the PTSD scheme are DISARMAMENT on a massive scale. The pot smokers just don’t understand the fact that they are choosing to be legally stoned rather than legally armed. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my own personal beliefs on the issue of MMJ. It has to do with the fact that I don’t like watching people being systematically disarmed by diabolical, deceitful “people”, unbeknownst to them. If you’re a MMj cardholder, don’t even THINK about legally owning, carrying, using a firearm the rest of your life.
***********************************************************
Washington, DC –-(Ammoland.com)- Sell a gun to someone who smokes a joint, get 20 years in jail
It’s Looney Toons on Capitol Hill.
Everyone’s heard about the “red herring” Feinstein Gun Ban, which “red state Democrats” will vote down in order to pretend they’re “pro-gun.”
But the bigger danger is that Obama will sign “non-controversial” gun control which is just as dangerous, but no one but us is talking about.
Take the gun licensure bill which anti-gunners are trying to dub the “gun trafficking bill.” In the Senate, the bill is S. 54, and was introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) — although it appears that it could have been drafted by an intern.
NY County Sheriff and Police Organization Issues Strong Condemnation Of New York’s “SAFE Act”
(Hat tip Jeff B. for the forward. Thank You, Jeff!)
The Saratoga [NY] County Deputy Sheriff’s Police Benevolent Association’s letter to the New York politicians who passed the so-called SAFE Act…..
Saratoga County Deputy Sheriff’s Police Benevolent Association
January 24. 2013
Senator Jeffrey D. Klein
Legislative Office Building. Room 304
Albany, NY 12247
Senator Dean G. Skelos
Legislative Office Building, Room 909
Albany. NY 12247
Senator Kathleen A. Marchione
Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Governor Andrew I. Cuomo
Room 918 NYS Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
Edvard Cox, Chairman
New York Republican State Committee
315 State Street
Albany. NY 12210
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins
Legislative Office Building, Room 907
Albany. NY 12247
Dear Governor Cuomo, Senators Klein, Marchione, Skelos, Stewart-Cousins, and Chairman Cox;
By this correspondence, the Saratoga County Deputy Sheriffs’ Pol ice Benevolent Association (SCDSPBA) would like to announce our strong opposition to the passage of the SAFE Act and the manner in which is was negotiated and subsequently voted upon. The SCDSPBA represents the sworn men and women police officers of the Saratoga County Sheriff’ s Office.
Our objections to the legislation are numerous and begin with the process under which the bill was voted on in the Senate. It is deeply disturbing to our membership, as public servants and citizens of the state of New York. the manner in which this legislation was brought to the Senate for vote. It is our understanding that many senators had approximately 20 minutes to read the legislation before being forced to vote on it and note that the bill was brought before the Senate and voted on so quickly that its authors failed to make provisions for the exemption of police officers or the National Guard with respect to the new magazine-capacity requirements.
Having reviewed the legislation and given the time constraints, it is our conclusion that there is no possible way any normal person could have read the entire bill and understood its implications prior to voting on it. They most certainly could not have requested and received the input of their constituency and considered their opinions in the matter – which is the most basic tenet of a representative government. The entire process was one of secrecy and of intentional withholding of information from the public. We condemn this in the harshest terns.
Had there been an opportunity for the public to exercise their right to be involved in the legislative process prior to the bill being voted upon, we would have offered a letter of opposition. Instead, we find ourselves in the rather unique position of opposing legislation after it has been passed. Our membership believes we were denied one of the nest basic rights of a democracy by this process and we cannot and will not accept this type of behavior from our elected officials.
In our opinion. there was absolutely no reason for the Governor to use a message of necessity to bring this bill to vote. We note that the Governor has used the message of necessity 35 times since taking office and for nearly every major piece of legislation he has sought to pass. This particular bill has 56 sections; 53 take effect in 60 days, 2 take effect in 1 year and 1 section, which requires owners of certain firearms to register them within l year, takes effect immediately.
In other words, given the language of the bill itself, there is no emergency. As the message of necessity is to be used solely in the case of a true emergency that warrants the waiver of the 3 day maturing process for all legislation, the Governor’s actions were questionable at best and a deliberate attempt to bypass the Constitutional process and thus opposition to the bill at worst. The evidence strongly suggests the latter.
The Senate Leadership also had a responsibility to negotiate this legislation publicly and to call the Governor out on his excessive use of the message of necessity. Unfortunately, they chose not to do either, thus depriving approximately 19.5 million citizens the opportunity to offer meaningful comments and criticisms of the bill, and to exercise their rights under our system of government. In short, the Senate Leadership allowed the Governor to force legislation upon the citizens of our state.
Instead of offering a check-and-balance against the Executive Branch. the Senate Leadership condoned and authorized what may fairly be described as ruling by fiat. Whether one is for or against the new legislation, all citizens should be truly concerned by the manner in which our allegedly representative government behaved and we condemn this in the harshest terms.
As a predominantly rural county in upstate New York, the lawful ownership of firearms is and has been a valued tradition enjoyed by many of our citizens. Sadly, the legislation effectively turns countless law—abiding gun owners into criminals for absolutely no reason.
Many of our membership are gun-owners and have gone through the same licensing process as non~police officers and it is our belief that this process has served our citizens well. Mandating law-abiding gun owners to now have to register certain types of firearms on~a yearly basis, in addition to registering them on their permits (which now must be renewed every 5 years), accomplishes nothing in the area of public safety and is unnecessarily burdensome to a citizen who has done nothing but abide by the laws of our state.
The SCSDPBA reminds addressees that “assault weapons”, which are banned under the new legislation if they have 1 military-type feature, were responsible for 5 out of 769 homicides in New York last year – or .007% – hardly a public safety crisis for our state. The Albany County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted 4 cases involving assault weapons last year – none of which involved their use in the commission of a crime – and a recent FBI report showed that hammers and clubs were responsible for more deaths than rifles and shotguns.
Given the foregoing, our membership questions why there was a need to ban the lawful use, possession, and sale of these firearms at all . Again, many citizens of our county previously enjoyed the use of these rifles for activities such as hunting and target shooting, and are now being forced to register these firearms, on a yearly basis, when they have done nothing wrong. In addition, any semi-automatic pistol that has 1 “military—type” feature will, under the new law, be considered an assault weapon.
While it may come as a surprise to the authors of the legislation, most semi-automatic pistols do in fact come with a pistol grin. making nearly every semi—automatic pistol an assault weapon and thus subject to registration on a yearly basis. This registration is in addition to registering the pistol on one’s pistol license every 5 years. The SCDSPBA believes this is absurd, serves no public safety interest in the slightest, and crosses the proverbial line from reasonable restrictions on gun ownership to outright harassment of law-abiding gun owners.
As police officers who encounter criminal activity on a daily basis, our membership finds the notion that a criminal might somehow wait in line to turn in his or her high-capacity magazines or sell them to someone out-of-state to be so ridiculous as to be not based in reality. It is beyond shocking that a member of a body entrusted to legislate the very laws that govern our society could, with a straight face, argue this point.
Our membership believes, as do most people of sound mind, that the only persons who will abide by the new high—capacity magazine ban are the law—abiding, leaving the same high-capacity magazines in the hands of those who choose not to obey the law.
Additionally, from an ethical and moral standpoint, we question why, if high-capacity magazines are as destructive and deadly as the legislature contends, they could be allowed to be sold to someone out-of—state. Certainly, they would be as dangerous in New Jersey as they would be in New York. Since 85 to 90% of guns used in crimes in New York originate from out-of-state, it is nothing short of incredible to us that the authors of this legislation could not have foreseen the possibility of these magazines finding their way back into New York.
However this is the proposed solution offered by our elected officials, for which we can find no discernible logic.
While there are some areas of the legislation that the union finds encouraging, such as addressing glaring shortcomings in the mental health system by-and-large, our membership finds the legislation to be little more than a thinly-veiled attempt at regulating lawful gun ownership out of existence. From the manner in which the legislation was negotiated in secret, to the fashion in which it was brought to the Senate floor for vote, there was nothing about the process that was transparent or that took into consideration what cannot be disputed – that law-abiding gun owners are not and have not been the source of criminal activity.
The legislation fails miserably to offer any meaningful solutions to the epidemic of gun violence and places the blame squarely where it does not belong – on the shoulders of law-abiding citizens. One need look no further than the embarrassment of New York’s Combined Ballistic Identification System that devoured $44 million in taxpayer money over 11 years to regulate lawful gun—ownership and which resulted in no convictions of anyone for anything to illustrate the non- complicity of lawful gun—owners in recent events.
In recent days, we have also become aware of published reports describing a large and growing movement within our state of citizens who have apparently announced their intention of non—compliance with the new statutes as they relate to assault weapons and registration. With an estimated 1 million assault rifles in existence throughout New York, it is beyond comprehension that the legislature and the Governor would needlessly place police officers in a position where they might be called upon to confiscate the previously lawfully owned property of an American citizen.
There can be no denying the potential danger this prospect places law enforcement in and once again strongly suggests a bill that was rushed to passage without forethought or any regard for its potential implications. We cannot excuse this and do not appreciate our very safety being sacrificed for political gain.
In conclusion, we would be remiss were we to not mention our outrage at the conduct of the Senate Republican Coalition. Many of our membership contacted Senator Skelos’ office on a regular basis to voice opposition to additional regulations of firearms and were assured that the senator’s office was being flooded with similar calls. We have, in the past, always looked to the Republican party to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens much in the same way we place our lives on the line every day to protect the rights of all citizens.
To have them negotiated away in secret and to be stripped of them in a clandestine vote is both appalling and unforgivable. It will most certainly give pause to many of our individual members when considering their voting choices in the future and we condemn this in the strongest possible way. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot offer our support for this legislation.
We encourage members of the legislature to hold hearings where the public is afforded the right to participate in the legislative process, to address the issue of gun violence in a way that might actually produce meaningful results, and to stop holding law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment hostage for the criminal behavior of another, and the political aspirations of the Governor.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Fuller
President – SCDSPBA
Our Sheriffs seem to be waking up. Let us pray this spreads across America…… and FAST. The Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association penned a similar letter to the politicians:
Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Position on Gun Legislation
Adopted February 7, 2013 by the Board of Directors
The Montana Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association (MSPOA) is
committed to public safety, and each of our members has taken an oath
to uphold and protect the Constitution of the State of Montana and
the United States Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
The MSPOA believes in the Second Amendment of the United States
Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and
bear arms and that this right shall not be infringed. It is important
to note that no legislation affecting this right has been introduced.
As our state and country continue to discuss and debate gun control
legislation, the position of our association remains steadfast: the
MSPOA will not waver in our defense of the Constitution and will
stand to preserve our constituents’ right to possess firearms and the
protections insured by the other nine amendments contained in the
Bill of Rights.
The MSPOA feels that any legislation that takes away constitutional
protections, including gun rights, from law-abiding citizens will not
alleviate or eliminate the threat from violent or mentally ill
individuals. In fact, it would expose our law-abiding neighbors to
violence with fewer resources to counter them with.
America has endured violent assaults of children and adults at the
hands of criminals who have used firearms as well as other weapons.
The MSPOA does not believe that it is the fault of the weapon, but
that of the often mentally disturbed individual who wields it. The
MSPOA has long supported the efforts of the mental health community
and will continue to do so.
As professional peace officers, elected and sworn to uphold both the
State and U.S. Constitutions, we additionally believe in the
importance of the division of power and roles of each of the three
branches of government, at both the state and federal level. MSPOA
feels that now is the time to discuss violence in its totality, not
simply as an issue of “gun” violence. Violence is a result of a
breakdown on many fronts: family, gangs, drugs, lack of proper mental
health treatment, and the proliferation of violence in media, just to
name a few. The discussion must include stakeholders from all
disciplines who are dedicated to and willing to address the myriad
and complex issues related to the safety of our communities and our country.
The MSPOA remains committed to the safety of the citizens of the
State of Montana. We will dedicate our efforts toward active
participation in the legislative process and the protection of the
rights of the people of our state. We welcome and encourage our
neighbors’ active participation in this process as well. As Congress
and the Montana legislature debate issues surrounding violence, the Second Amendment, and gun rights, the MSPOA will insure that our voices will be heard.
Olympic Arms Severs All Ties With The Fraternal Order Of Police (FOP)
Olympic Arms was recently asked to advertise in the FOP Journal; the official magazine of the Fraternal Order of Police. It is well known that the FOP is a staunch supporter of Gun Control, had backed the AWB under Bill Clinton, and supports the current AWB under consideration that was introduced by Diane Feinstein. The FOP was actually accredited as being one of the sources that helped prepare the language of Gun Control suggestions that were forwarded by Vice President Biden. Below is a copy of OA’s response to the FOP Journal:
Please forward this email to every major principal in your organization.
AS:
1. The Fraternal Order of Police is on Congressional Record as having been a major supporter of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
a. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZGb…%20Ban&f=false
2. As a matter of fact and record, the FOP is accredited with assisting VP Biden in formulating the language of the newly proposed ban:
a. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/biden-no-reason-assault-weapons-ban-shouldnt-clear-152546.html
3. Additionally, as a matter of fact and public record, the FOP is in support of the newly recommended Assault Weapons Ban introduced by Senator Feinstein.
a. FOP representatives were actually standing on the Stage during the presentation as a sign of “support”.
THEREFORE:
Olympic Arms, Inc, manufacturers of AR15 type firearms, firearms that these legislators would call “Assault Weapons”, will not be supporting in any way, shape, form or fashion, The Fraternal Order of Police, any organization that represents, supports, takes advertising dollars from, spends advertising dollars with, is in anyway related to, any individual who is a card carrying member of, or any person or entity in any way associated with the Fraternal Order of Police. Period.
Henceforth;
• Be assured that Olympic Arms will not rest in its efforts to educate our customers, fans and followers the extent of the hypocrisy committed by the FOP and FOP Journal (fighting to outlaw the firearms produced by the very companies they now solicit for advertising dollars…). You can also be certain that we continue to make every effort to properly educate the firearms consumer in general, of the same.
• Additionally, we will make continued efforts at assure that ALL firearms manufacturers are aware of the FOP’s support to strip Constitutional Rights from Americans, and their support of further unconstitutional gun control legislation.
• We pledge to inform all of our customers the lengths that the FOP and associated FOP affiliates by proxy (which includes all your advertisers)are willing to go to in order to strip the American Citizen of their Constitutional Rights, while at the same time writing in exemptions to the same legislation to ensure that their members maintain those same rights they would have stripped from others.
• Your actions are the actions of a rogue organization supporting tyranny, not an organization sworn to uphold the laws of the land, to protect, serve and defend their constituencies.
Let it be know, that your actions are reprehensible and shameful.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics…and-much-more/
http://www.guncite.com/aswpolice.html
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Spithaler
Sales & Marketing Dir.
Olympic Arms, Inc.
A Heavily Armed Citizenry Is A Virtue
It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.
Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.
A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.
The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.
That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.
Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context.
Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist or insist it doesn’t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.”
Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms.
They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.
The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”
The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.
The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.”
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.
That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”
But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.
A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.
Magpul’s Open Letter to CO Lawmakers – Pass Gun Control, We Leave & Take Our Jobs With Us
(Hat tip Don B. for the forward. Thanks Don!)
Magpul, the maker of one of the most popular AR-15 magazines, the PMAG, along with other AR-15 accessories has posted an open letter to their customers and Colorado lawmakers.
The company basically says if CO passes a proposed law that would ban magazines over 10 rounds in capacity, they would be forced to move their operation to another state in order to stay in operation.
In doing so the company would be taking their tax dollars and hundreds if not thousands of jobs with them (once you take sub-contractors into account).
Bravo Magpul, bravo. They join several companies who have taken a stand recently. This includes LaRue Tactical, who recently announced they would no longer sell rifles to state and local agencies that don’t allow citizens to own those same rifles.
Here is the full letter form Magpul, as posted on their Facebook page:
“In addition to the national battle to protect our firearms rights, many states are currently engaged in their own fights. Here in CO, a state with a strong heritage of firearm and other personal freedoms, we are facing some extreme challenges to firearms rights. We have been engaged in dialogue with legislators here presenting our arguments to stop legislation from even being introduced, but our efforts did not deter those of extreme views.
After the NRAs visit last week, several anti-freedom bills were introduced by CO legislators, and a very aggressive timeline has been set forth in moving these bills forward.
The bills include:
HB 1229, Background checks for Gun Transfers–a measure to prohibit private sales between CO residents, and instead require a full FFL transfer, including a 4473.
HB 1228, Payment for Background Checks for Gun Transfers– a measure that would require CO residents to pay for the back logged state-run CBI system (currently taking 3 times the federally mandated wait time for checks to occur) instead of using the free federal NICS checks.
And finally, HB 1224, Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines–a measure that bans the possession, sale, or transfer of magazines over 10 round capacity. The measures and stipulations in this bill would deprive CO residents of the value of their private property by prohibiting the sale or transfer of all magazines over 10 rounds. This bill would also prohibit manufacture of magazines greater than 10 rounds for commercial sale out of the state, and place restrictions on the manufacture of military and law enforcement magazines that would cripple production.
We’d like to ask all CO residents to please contact your state legislators and the members of the Judiciary Committee and urge them to kill these measures in committee, and to vote NO if they reach the floor.
We also ask you to show your support for the 2nd Amendment at the Capitol on Tuesday, Feb 12, for the magazine ban committee hearing and Wednesday,
Feb 13, for the hearing on the other measures.
Due to the highly restrictive language in HB 1224, if passed, and we remained here, this measure would require us to cease PMAG production on July 1, 2013.
In short, Magpul would be unable to remain in business as a CO company, and the over 200 jobs for direct employees and nearly 700 jobs at our subcontractors and suppliers would pick up and leave CO. Due to the structure of our operations, this would be entirely possible, hopefully without significant disruption to production.
The legislators drafting these measures do so in spite of the fact that nothing they are proposing will do anything to even marginally improve public safety in CO, and in fact, will leave law-abiding CO residents less able to defend themselves, strip away rights and property from residents who have done nothing wrong, and send nearly 1000 jobs and millions in tax revenue out of the state.
We like CO, we want to continue to operate in CO, but most of all, we want CO to remain FREE.
Please help us in this fight, and let your voices be heard!
We have included the contact information for the House Judiciary committee for your convenience:
House Judiciary Committee
Rep. Daniel Kagan, Chair: 303-866-2921, repkagan@gmail.com
Rep. Pete Lee, Vice Chair: 303-866-2932, pete.lee.house@state.co.us
Rep. John Buckner: 303-866-2944, john.buckner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Lois Court: 303-866-2967, lois.court.house@state.co.us
Rep. Bob Gardner, 303-866-2191, bob.gardner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Polly Lawrence, 303-866-2935, polly.lawrence.house@state.co.us
Rep. Mike McLachlan, 303-866-2914, mike.mclachlan.house@state.co.us
Rep. Rep Carole Murray, 303-866-2948, murrayhouse45@gmail.com
Rep. Brittany Pettersen, 303-866-2939, brittany.pettersen.house@state.co.us
Rep. Joseph Salazar, 303-866-2918, joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us
Rep. Jared Wright, 303-866-2583, jared.wright.house@state.co.us”
Read the full article here:
https://www.facebook.com/magpul/posts/428803833863947…
Magpul joins Olympic Arms and LaRue Tactical in voicing opposition to anti-Second Amendment legislation.
American Firearms Manufacturers Tell The Gun Grabbing Politicians To Shove It
(Hat tip Don B for the forward. Thank You, Don!)
Olympic Arms has joined the ranks of Magpul and LaRue Tactical in taking a stand against state governments who are trying to infringe the Second Amendment rights of their citizens.
Olympic Arms primarily manufactures entry level AR-15 style weapons and other firearms.
Olympic Arms released the following press release via their Facebook Page.
Press Release: Olympic Arms, Inc. Announces New York State Sales Policy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Olympic Arms is a staunch believer in and defender of the Constitution of the United States, and with special attention paid to the Bill of Rights that succinctly enumerates the security of our Divinely given Rights. One of those Rights is that to Keep and Bear Arms.
Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines. We feel as though the passage of this legislation exceeds the authority granted to the government of New York by its citizens, and violates the Constitution of the United States, ignoring such SCOTUS rulings as District of Columbia v. Heller – 554, U.S. 570 of 2008, McDonald v. Chicago – 561 U.S. 3025 of 2010, and specifically the case of United States v. Miller – 307 U.S. 174 of 1939.
Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.
In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.
If the leaders of the State of New York are willing to limit the right of the free and law abiding citizens of New York to arm themselves as they see fit under the Rights enumerate to all citizens of the United State through the Second Amendment, we feel as though the legislators and government entities within the State of New York should have to abide by the same restrictions.
This action has caused a division of the people into classes: Those the government deems valuable enough to protect with modern firearms, and those whose lives have been deemed as having less value, and whom the government has decided do not deserve the right to protect themselves with the same firearms. Olympic Arms will not support such behavior or policy against any citizen of this great nation.
Olympic Arms invites all firearms manufacturers, distributors and firearms dealers to join us in this action to refuse to do business with the State of New York. We must stand together, or we shall surely fall divided.
Sincerely,
Brian Schuetz
President
Olympic Arms, Inc.
Source: Guns Save Lives
THE WAKING GIANT 