Gun Confiscation; Could It Happen In America?
Feb 14, 2013 Political
There is no doubt that liberals do not like the Constitution which they view, as Obama said, as deeply flawed. They hate the Second Amendment and the fact that it protects the right to keep and bear arms, a right that preexisted the document. The Founders protected that right because they saw firsthand what a tyrannical government can do to people.
Liberals love to go after law abiding citizens when some lunatic uses a firearm illegally. The left is more than happy to punish the millions of people who did nothing wrong. Their idea on gun violence would be like solving drunk driving by banning sober people from buying cars. The big difference, of course, is that keeping and bearing a firearm is a right and driving is a privilege so even though banning sober people from owning cars is moronic, it would not be unconstitutional.
What government gives you government can take away. Government allows us the privilege of driving. The right to keep and bear arms is a God given RIGHT. Government cannot take away that which was given by God (absent a valid reason like committing a crime in which case one surrenders the right as a consequence of an action).
Obama has always hated firearms (except those used to protect him and his family). He has never wanted people to have them and has worked to get rid of them. Every time some nut uses a firearm to commit a crime Obama calls for common sense laws to prevent such things. No such laws exist and those laws enacted would only harm lawful owners. Obama seems unable to comprehend the fact that criminals do not obey the law. Obama should be aware of this because all the laws against drug use did not stop him and his Choom Gang from using drugs. Would tougher laws against drugs have prevented little Barry Obama from using pot and cocaine to get stoned with his buddies?
Liberals across the nation have trotted out laws to infringe on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In Missouri the Democrats have crafted a bill that would outlaw all firearms designated as assault weapons and all magazines designated as high capacity. People would have 90 days to surrender (render permanently inoperable or remove from the state) all such firearms or face criminal charges (another reason not to have a registry of firearm owners).
I would like to think this bill would not pass but in this day and age the Constitution means nothing to politicians, particularly the progressives/liberals, and government at all levels is becoming more tyrannical. I can only imagine that if this were to pass there would be many clashes between those who try to confiscate and those who say no.
The real danger is that this is an Overton Window. The liberals introduce this outlandish legislation and people revolt. Then they back off to what they really wanted and people say it is OK believing they averted a disaster. It is an incremental approach to banning firearms.
Say NO to this kind of stuff. There are no qualifiers in the Second Amendment that allows government to determine the size or type of firearm or magazine. There are laws that prohibit government from keeping a registry of firearm owners. As an aside, Democrats are willing to ignore those laws while expecting us to believe that criminals (private sector criminals, as opposed to those in government) will follow any law banning firearms, magazines or ammunition.
Many law enforcement officers across the nation are making it known they will not follow any law that infringes on the Second Amendment. This is for federal laws. We need such people strongly asserting that they will not follow state or local laws that infringe.
One such officer is Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania.
We, as a people, need to stand up and fight the tyranny. We have the soap box, the ballot box and the bullet box. What we choose depends on what government does.
Do you still think government will not deny your rights or confiscate your firearms? Do you think that it could not happen in America?
How would it have played out if those people were organized and fought back? How would it have played out if they were prepared and had in mind that government might confiscate firearms? How would it have ended if they had been ready before the police and NG organized?
The government is preparing. Are you ready and how will YOU respond?
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: gun confiscation, katrina, lies, missouri, nra, Obama, rights, Second Amendment
Government Defines AR 15 As Suitable For Personal Defense
Feb 7, 2013 Political
The term assault weapon is a manufactured term applied to firearms that the anti gun crowd finds scary. The state and federal government’s anti gun folks and their stenographers in the media use this term to demonize those who own them. This is why you hear the term assault weapon whenever an AR 15 is used. They want you to think that this is some magical firearm that can be used to kill more people than a firearm that is not designated as an assault weapon.
The anti gun (which means anti Constitution) crowd banned these firearms in the past. The bans were based on cosmetic items and had nothing to do with functionality. Any firearm that did not have the cosmetic items but fired exactly the same was not an assault weapon.
Bans do not work. Columbine happened in the middle of the last ban.
[note]One of the cosmetic items is a bayonet lug (for non gun folks that is the part of the firearm that allows a bayonet to be attached). This item makes a firearm an assault weapon despite Barack Obama’s assertion that we have not used bayonets in about 100 years.[/note]
When people who own these scary firearms say they use them to hunt and for personal protection the anti gun folks say that no one needs an AR 15. These firearms, we are told, are only suitable for the battlefield or for the police. Taking the battlefield argument out of it (despite what we have been told, America is not an actual battlefield) why do the police, the people who interact with citizens in America, get to have them? If the people do not need them then neither do the police.
Hell, the very same people who tell us that items that are suitable ONLY for the battlefield should not be on American streets are all too happy to have police departments and government law enforcement agencies patrolling around in vehicles designed for battle with people who carry weapons designed for battle.
But I digress.
The gun grabbers say your AR style firearm is not a personal defense weapon.
However, the government has designated these types of firearms as suitable for that very purpose. In fact, a DHS solicitation for 7000 select fire weapons (semi automatic AND fully automatic) indicates that the department solicited for 5.56mm NATO select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense
If the firearm the DHS will use is suitable for personal defense then the civilian model of that firearm is certainly suitable for the same purpose.
Those of us with a brain already knew this and can see the hypocrisy of the words used in the solicitation.
The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms and that Amendment does not define what those arms shall be. SCOTUS rulings have already made it clear that firearms protected under the 2A are those with a military function and our Founders made it clear that citizens were to be allowed arms equal to those used by a standing army to ensure we had the ability to fight our government should it become tyrannical.
Politicians at all levels of government have limited authority to define what kind of firearms free people may possess. It does not matter what they like or feel the 2A is clear. Government has no authority to limit the number of rounds one can buy or the number of rounds a magazine can hold. It has no authority to ban or confiscate firearms that it does not like.
Period.
Our Founders protected our right because of the very things we are seeing today.
It would be unwise for any government to try and disarm us. DHS knows it because it has purchased 7000 personal defense firearms to fight the people with dangerous assault weapons. /snark
The government is setting up the perfect storm and it is preparing for the unrest it is encouraging. The government has purchased many more firearms than this and has purchased over a billion rounds of ammo. That is enough to wage a war the scare of Iraq at the highest level of ammo expenditure for 30 years.
Any question about what they are planning?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: 5.56mm nato, ar 15, assault weapon, dhs, lies, personal defense firearm, Second Amendment, tyranny
Bloomberg Is What They Had In Mind
Jan 28, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
Reporter Jason Mattera approached New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at the governor’s conference in DC and asked him if he would disarm his security guards in the spirit of gun control. Bloomberg responded that he would get back to Mattera on that. His five armed guards worked to keep Mattera away from the Mayor and were not too happy about the questions. It seemed the question about why Bloomberg has armed guards when he wants to deny others the right to protect themselves struck a raw nerve.
As Bloomberg was whisked away by some of his detail one of the New York police officers who protect him approached Mattera and asked for ID. Mattera provided his press credentials and the officer asked for his driver’s license. Mattera told the officer he did not need that but the officer explained he needed to make sure the name on the press credentials matched the person presenting them. I am not sure if this officer had any authority in DC to make such a request. In any event, Mattera showed his driver’s license and the officer started to write down information until Mattera said something about him doing so.
This was nothing more than an attempt at intimidating Mattera. It was an attempt to make Mattera feel threatened and to let him know they were going to investigate him. Why else would the officer need to write anything down? Do you suppose he would have asked Chris Matthews for ID?
The officer followed Mattera around DC and asked him his date of birth (more intimidation) to which Mattera responded that it was none of his business.
Mattera had it absolutely right. Here is Bloomberg, in our Nation’s Capital, and he is surrounded by at least five armed guards. Why is he any more important than the people of DC or New York? Why is it the taxpayers of New York foot the bill to protect this jerk when he is bound and determined to deny those people the right to protect themselves? He has no problem taking their money and spending it on his own protection (when he is a billionaire to boot) but will not let them have guns to protect themselves. If they don’t need guns then he does not need armed guards, period.
Michael Bloomberg is the kind of politician our Founders had in mind when they protected our right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment. The right preexisted the Constitution and the Amendment does not give us the right, it acknowledges that it existed prior to the Constitution and protects it.
Any politician who tries to disarm American citizens is a traitor and should be treated as such. These are the kinds of people our Founders were wary of because they will usurp the Constitution and then abuse the people. Governments have disarmed people around the world and then murdered lots and lots of them. In fact, governments around the world have murdered more of their own people than any citizens ever have.
[note]When people are armed sometimes mass shootings occur. When they are disarmed genocide occurs.[/note]
I have added Bloomberg to my terror watch list. He joins Barack Obama and Martin O’Malley (among many others) on a list of people who are represent threats to the Constitution.
Mattera showed what happens when the elitist traitors are confronted about their hypocrisy.
Mattera had better watch his back of he might end up Breitbarted.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: armed guards, bloomberg, gun control, hypocrite, liar, Second Amendment
Feinstein And The Other Oath Breakers
Jan 24, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
Senator Dianne Feinstein of Commiefornia has introduced her anti Second Amendment bill and in that bill she and several other oath breakers list 150 different firearms that they want banned. Her anti American bill also calls for a national registry ala Adolph Hitler and most other dictators.
Feinstein introduced this bill and the national registry provision would violate Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act, which prohibits a national database. This law was the result of documented abused by the ATF in enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968.
That should come as no surprise since the attempt to ban firearms is in and of itself, unconstitutional as it violates the Second Amendment.
Keep in mind, Feinstein had her own carry permit because she was threatened with harm. She had one while claiming other women do not need to have firearms because women are not strong enough to use these machines of destruction.
She was joined by Chuck Schumer of New York, another gun grabber who has a New York carry permit AND has armed officers surrounding him when he is in New York.
Banning firearms will not stop the next lunatic from shooting people because criminals and those who have mental health problems will not follow the law. They will still be able to get firearms, banned or not, and they will still be able to get magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. These are facts and have been demonstrated time and again. The Columbine shootings happened in the middle of the last “assault weapons” ban so it would appear as if the ban did not work.
It is important to emphasize the point that laws do not keep criminals from doing bad things. The overarching thing to remember when it is reported that someone murdered people with a gun is that MURDER IS ILLEGAL. If laws against murder are not obeyed what makes anyone think laws banning the instruments used by criminals will be obeyed?
The very people who want to ban firearms are against the death penalty. They claim that the death penalty does not deter crime. That is an issue for another time but someone please tell me, if the death penalty is not a deterrent how will a gun ban deter criminals from using guns to do bad things?
This whole anti American bill from Feinstein and her cohorts is nothing but a move to further control people’s lives. Millions of gun owners do not commit crimes each day but they suffer for the criminals who do.
We have not banned banks to prevent bank robberies. We have not banned cars or alcohol to prevent drunk driving. We have not banned forks to prevent obesity but somehow banning guns will prevent gun crime.
Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.
[note]References:
Washington Times
Weekly Standard
CBS San Fran
Daily Caller
Guns Save Lives
Reason
State Department Memo 7277, September 1961[/note]
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: criminals, dianne feinstein, gun ban, lies, oath breaker, Second Amendment
Governing By Executive Order
Jan 15, 2013 Commentary, Political
Imperial President Barack Obama is set to use Executive Orders to violate the Constitution in order to push gun control. While Obama is not the first leader to abuse Executive Orders he is the only one in recent memory to use them to so blatantly abuse the power of his office and to violate the rights of US citizens. Obama will have children present when he makes his big announcement.
He is walking on the graves of those kids murdered in Connecticut and he is using the children at his announcement as props to garner sympathy. He has no shame and will do anything to push his Socialist agenda.
Executive Orders have their place and that place is to issue orders to agencies of the Executive Branch in order to manage their operations. Executive Orders can also be used by Presidents in order to pursue Acts of Congress which have delegated some power to him.
Executive Orders CANNOT be used to enact a new law, change an old law or govern the American people.
The reason Barack Obama is using EOs is because he will not be able to get what he wants through Congress and that does not suit him. He will, instead, do an end run around Congress. This is a violation of his authority and the Constitution and it is the duty of Congress to ensure he does not get away with this.
There is one Republican lawmaker who has vowed to file articles of impeachment against Obama if he tires this power grab. Unfortunately, many Democrats are urging Obama to usurp their authority because they do not believe any bills violating the Second Amendment will pass through Congress.
In any event, nothing he tries to impose via EO will apply to the public and accordingly, I refuse to comply.
I will not comply with any order or law that violates my rights. Other citizens are free to do as they wish, comply or not, but I will not. I see how things work. They will impose some rule and rush to remove guns from society and then the issue will make it to the courts and by the time the issue is ruled in favor of the Constitution all the surrendered firearms will have been melted into plows. People will never get their property back and will have no recourse. Additionally, once you allow one right to be taken the rest will fall if they interfere with government’s desires. The Second Amendment is the one that protects all others.
The oath I took to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic does not have an expiration date and I intend to uphold my oath under all circumstances.
Obama and many in this government are working to violate our Constitution and that means they are domestic enemies.
Additionally, I will not follow any law enacted at the state level if that law violates the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection to all people of the state. Basically, states can’t do things in violation of the US Constitution and enacting laws that violate the Second Amendment violates the law.
What harm could a little EO do?
Keep in mind that it was an Executive Order that led to the unlawful confinement of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting and it is not about sport shooting. It is there to protect the means citizens have to keep their government in check. It allows us to shoot at tyrants in our own government.
But, Piers Morgan and other liberals say this is nonsense and that the US government will not abuse it people.
Really? What about the previously mentioned Japanese Americans? What about the blacks who were brought here and sold as slaves? These folks were denied their liberty and it was sanctioned by the government. It was eventually changed but how long did our government allow people to be held in bondage before it changed? If one thinks the government would not do bad things to a disarmed population should ask the Native Americans how things worked out. Government massacred them.
Then, after it changed, southern states tried to deny blacks the right to keep and bear arms. It is easier to round up people and lynch them when they are not armed.
Governments will eventually become corrupt. Look at how massive and corrupt our government is now. Imagine how bad things would get if those in charge knew they could do what they wanted because people lacked the means to resist.
Executive orders and unconstitutional laws are detrimental to society and I refuse to follow them.
I and many others will honor our oath, period.
One last point. I keep hearing the question; “why do you need a magazine that holds more than ten rounds?” I need it because I want it and I am free. I need it because that is what the military has and I am to be armed as well as the individual soldier.
My question is why does Obama need so many people with guns protecting him? Won’t one guy or maybe two do the trick? Why does Governor O’Malley of Maryland need an armed detail of at least six police officers to protect him? Won’t one guy with a gun suffice? Hell, why are we paying for their protection when they are working so hard to deny us ours?
MOLON LABE…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: enemies, executive order, law, lies, oath keepers, Obama, Second Amendment