Archive

Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

More On HOW The UN Gun Treaty CAN and WILL Be Enforced If We Don’t UN-SIGN IT.

September 26, 2013 3 comments

UNGunwithknot(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: "Disarm OR Perish"!

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

By Theodore Bromund

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

Source

UN_Blue_Helmet

PROOF: Government PLANNED Monday’s DC Naval Base Mass Murder

September 17, 2013 1 comment

 

 

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

March 18, 2013 1 comment

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.

 

  • 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 Capitol, in Denver, Monday March 4, 2013. State Senate committees began work Monday on a package of gun-control measures that already have cleared the House which include limits on ammunition magazine sizes and expanded background checks to include private sales and online purchases. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

    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

March 9, 2013 6 comments

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”

February 17, 2013 4 comments

(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…..

 

(courtesy issu.com)

 

 

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

http://mspoa.org/

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)

February 16, 2013 1 comment

consequences

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.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: