f/AP ^ | 4/30/2013
Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:35:09 AM by RoosterRedux
Two billboards in which images of Native Americans are used to make a gun rights argument are causing a stir with some Colorado residents who say the image is offensive and insensitive.
The billboards in this northern Colorado city show three men dressed in traditional Native American attire and the words “Turn in your arms. The government will take care of you.”
Americans ‘Snapping’ by the Millions… (Gunny G: Shhh… But, Let’s NOT Mention Such A Non-PC Thing !!!)
Americans ‘Snapping’ by the Millions
World Net Daily ^ | 4/21/13 | David Kupelian
Posted on Monday, April 22, 2013 7:16:08 PM by anymouse
But what few seem to realize about this transformation is that the sheer stress of living in today’s America is driving tens of millions to the point of illness, depression and self-destruction. Consider the following trends:
“All of this is so in our face. Everything that people hold dear is under assault. Deliberately making people upset! This is not what presidents do.”
‘I Don’t Trust the Government’:
The Blaze ^Posted on Friday, April 12, 2013 8:46:31 AM by Perdogg..d.and
Recommends Eric Holder Be Arrested
Sporting a graying beard and his signature camouflage hat, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent on Thursday dismissed the Senate’s gun control bill as a “feel-good measure” that won’t stop any shootings.
Backwoods Engineer Blog ^ | 10 April 2013 | The Backwoods Engineer
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2013 8:47:40 AM by backwoods-engineer
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
|Judge Napolitano: Connecticut Gun Control Law “A Wishlist For …
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I think it is a serious interference with the individual right to keep and bear arms, and Connecticut is a unique situation.
|Judge Andrew P. Napolitano: When the Government Goes Bankrupt
Jewish World Review Apr. 4, 2013/ 24 Nissan, 5773. When the Government Goes Bankrupt. By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano …
Political leftists with global ambitions, who fear the wrath of a free people, have been trying to disarm American citizens for more than a hundred years now. Although Americans have been quite tolerant of past overreaches of political authority at the federal, state and local level, the silence of the people should not be misinterpreted as their consent. Far from it…
In the end, our rights shall NOT be infringed! PERIOD!
The subject of our inalienable rights, protected by the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and State Constitutions, is simple. – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Why? – Because, a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State and a free people.
A state which is subservient to any supreme central power is not a “free state.” Our Founders created a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a democracy. The thirteen original colonies and the balance of the states by ratification, created a federal government via a compact known as the U.S. Constitution, and further protected states and individual rights via the Bill of (inalienable) Rights.
The people, via their states, assigned certain specific and limited duties to the federal government they created, along with the limited authority to carry out those duties.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost | MOLAN LABE!… “UN Arms Trade Treaty Calls for Disarmament of Persons 55 and Older”
Within the pages of “Behold a Pale Horse,” Cooper charges that certain sectors of the U.S. government initiated a covert operation decades ago designed to gradually turn the population against the private ownership of firearms.
In order to accomplish such a feat, the government set about on a deliberate course of action that would insure that deadly, military grade firearms would make it into the hands of dangerous criminals.
UN Secretary Gen. Ban Ki-moon spoke about the impetus behind the controversial measure at a press conference over the weekend in New York City, the site of the final negotiations between the 193 Member States.
“Regulating the international transfers of both weapons and ammunition is a key component of a robust arms trade treaty, as is limiting civilian access to small arms and munitions,” said Ban Ki-moon.
UN disarms elderly
PFC Agnes Agnieszka mans a machine gun next to a truck.
“There’s an emerging consensus that certain groups should be restricted from possessing conventional arms, certainly those who fuel conflict, arm criminals or violations of international humanitarian or human rights law are at the top of the list,” Ban Ki-moon continued.
“But also, the international community believes segments of the population that present a danger to themselves and others, chiefly individuals deemed or adjudicated mentally defective and persons with attenuating cerebral faculties, should be added to that list.”
Few issues highlight the gaping philosophical divide between libertarians and modern conservatives more starkly than the issue of guns. This might seem counterintuitive, because libertarians and modern conservatives often stand shoulder to shoulder against liberals and progressives to defend individual gun rights. The convenient alliance between modern conservatives and libertarians in the political trenches, however, conceals a fundamental and serious philosophical disagreement.
In order to fully grasp the division between libertarians and modern conservatives on this issue, it is important to understand why libertarians and conservatives think gun rights are so important. At the most general level, both libertarians and modern conservatives agree that all men have a natural right to defend themselves against aggression. More specifically, every man has a natural right to repel with violent force any unjust aggression against his life or his property.
Libertarians and modern conservatives do not defend individual gun rights out of some bizarre and loony obsession with a 200-year-old piece of parchment called “The Constitution.” On the contrary, they hold that the Constitution of the United States merely articulated something about man’s nature that has always been and always will be true.
The logical implication of this, both libertarians and modern conservatives agree, is that individuals have a natural right not just to defend their lives and their property against aggression from individual murderers and thieves, but that they have a natural right to defend themselves from unjust aggression by government. Hollow indeed would be the right to self-defense if it did not include the right to defend oneself against aggression by government – including one’s own government, because governments have killed and robbed exponentially more people than have private criminals.
Recognizing this fact, libertarians and modern conservatives agree that the natural right to self-defense must include a right to defend oneself against unjust government aggression, and that doing so usually requires more than simply a stick or a slingshot. A population armed with modern guns is not easily cowed, robbed, or massacred unless governments resort to wildly immoral and indiscriminate tactics or weapons of mass destruction.
So far so good. Libertarians and modern conservatives agree that…..
A Lesson to be Learned on the Anniversary of Wounded Knee
email ^ | Unkown | Unkown
Posted on Monday, March 11, 2013 6:28:04 PM by B4Ranch
December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms for their own safety and protection.
The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.
Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed National Heroes and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.
When gun confiscation begins, ALL politicians must be viewed as enemies of freedom until proven otherwise « Coach is Right
by Doug Book, staff writer
As the far left pass into law unconstitutional and unforgivable statutes by which to confiscate the firearms of the American people, a number of gun rights supporters believe the reclamation of our 2nd Amendment rights must depend upon the continued election of declared, pro-2nd Amendment Republicans.
Unfortunately, such is the rose-colored-glasses thinking of individuals either too foolish, too gullible or too cowardly to recognize the perpetual treachery of elected Republicans for what it truly is— a politician’s perception of political necessity taking precedence over his duty to support the God given rights of the American people.
And never mind the argument that politicians who vote for gun confiscation will be in imminent danger of losing their jobs and therefore get what they deserve. That is irrelevant to the situation. For such politicians are traitors to the nation and to the American people. They are intent upon eliminating a God given, constitutionally codified and protected right! Therefore, reclaiming their elected office ceases to be an issue of any import as the very fact of their vote to abolish the right to keep and bear arms means they have lost all right to be a lawmaker in a free country.
Judge Napolitano: Will States’ Nullification Of Federal Gun Control Laws Hold Up In Court? – YouTube
Judge Napolitano: Will States’ Nullification Of Federal Gun Control Laws Hold Up In Co
Day of Resistance to Gun Control is this Saturday… “When it comes to our God-given, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, the American people aren’t messing around, and the criminal, communist administration in Washington knows it”
American Clarion ^ | February 19, 2013 | Gina Miller
Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:11:32 PM by WXRGina
When it comes to our God-given, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, the American people aren’t messing around, and the criminal, communist administration in Washington knows it. Maybe that’s why non-Defense Department federal agencies have been planning ahead, snapping up billions of bullets, as well as thousands of guns, without explaining why they would need this amount of firepower here in our own country, other than to say it’s for “training purposes.”
Many rounds are reportedly hollow points. Why would you use the more expensive hollow point bullets for “training purposes”? I’ll have more on that in a few moments.
This Saturday, February 23rd, has been declared the Day of Resistance. We need resistance every day, but this is a good start. From the Day of Resistance website is this message:
While the President and the rabid left continue to pursue a ban on semi-automatic firearms, manufacturers are fighting back by refusing to sell to government agencies that support the President’s plan.
Illinois Gov. Rahm Emannuel tried to pressure Bank of America to stop doing business with firearms companies. Viewed as perfectly acceptable behavior by a large portion of America, firearms manufacturers copied the tactic and returned the favor.
Larue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Templar Custom, Extreme Firepower and now RAM Arms have vocalized that they will not sell their products to government agencies that support the President’s position on gun rights.
Manufacturing mass social unrest would be a foolish mistake
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
February 14, 2013
Despite the fact that the banking elite wants to generate riots and stir social disorder in order to collapse the U.S. economy so they can buy up real assets on the cheap, if such chaos was to spill over into a full blown civil war, the consequences for the technocrats would be disastrous.
Image: Wikipedia Commons
In part one we explored why the elite routinely generate civil unrest in countries as a tactic of driving down confidence, scaring away investors and setting themselves up as the saviors in order to loot what’s left of the economy for next to nothing.
We also documented how authorities in America are clearly in a preparatory phase for mass civil unrest to break out within the next 5-10 years.
http://www.thedailybell.com/ ^ | February 10, 2013 | Anthony Wile
Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:32:35 PM by B4Ranch
Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us again. Let’s jump right in with a discussion of your new book, The Sword and Sovereignty. Give us a synopsis, please. Where can people buy it?
Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com. It is a study of the actual constitutional “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the Second Amendment in its inextricable relation to “the Militia of the several States,” as opposed to the historically inaccurate and legally indefensible so-called “individual right to keep and bear arms” on which almost all contemporary advocates of the Second Amendment fixate.
I describe “the individual right to keep and bear arms” as legally indefensible because fundamentally it is a right in name only, inasmuch as it lacks an effective remedy if an highly organized and armed tyranny sets out to suppress it, whereas the true “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” exercised in the context of “well regulated Militia” is the Constitution’s own preferred remedy against usurpation and tyranny in their every aspect.
Democrat Senator Supports 2nd Amendment as “Safeguard Against Tyranny” (!)
Guns (magazine): “Know Your Lawmakers” ^ | February, 1960 | Hubert Humphrey
Posted on Friday, February 01, 2013 12:45:39 PM by Beelzebubba
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible”
Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting 2nd Amendment
SOFREP.com ^ | January 29, 2013 | Blake Miles
Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:12:12 AM by Perseverando
The following letter was disseminated and signed by over 1,000 current and former Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) in support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, specifically as a defensive measure against tyranny. The letter was compiled through the joint efforts of current and former Special Forces personnel over at http://www.ProfessionalSoldiers.com , and quietly disseminated for signatures among secure, vetted circles.
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
Known for the Guy Fawkes masks worn at protests, Anonymous has styled itself as an anti-authority crusader against government corruption and lack of transparency, and supported the Occupy protests. And now the hackers are stepping into the gun control debate, warning in a lengthy message today that “throughout history authoritarian governments have used gun violence as an excuse to take peoples firearms and control there population.”
“Obama has been working hard to try and ban semi-automatic weapons and shotguns while at the same time increasing the weapons and firepower that police and government agencies have. Within minutes of the Connecticut shooting, politicians were on the state run media saying it was time to get rid of the guns and they will be talking about it for weeks to come,” Anonymous wrote on its blog. “The Obama administration and his government funded media have been promoting this idea for months. Everytime there is a shooting performed by a crazy person the media talks about it non-stop for weeks or months. But when there is an illegal or unlawful shooting by police that does not fit Obama’s agenda the story is barely mentioned.”
Ted Nugent on Obama “When a man, can dictate to another man… ““If you want another Concord Bridge, I’ve got some buddies””
Ted Nugent, the 64 year old rock star and NRA board member, unloaded his opinion on current gun control measures, our elected leaders and gun free zones to the team at Guns.com while at the SHOT show. The SHOT show, being held this year in Las Vegas, is the nation’s largest shooting industry trade show with 60,000 attendees.
Nugent is a gun rights quote machine.
“If you want another Concord Bridge, I’ve got some buddies”
When the two met, Lott’s reputation on guns preceded him, and Lott claims Obama said, “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”Read that again, and let it soak in;
Barack Obama reportedly said, “I don’t think people should be able to own guns.” In my correspondence with Lott, he stood by his story.
And there’s little reason to doubt Lott’s account, especially when you take Obama’s history of anti-gun legislation into account.
Excerpt Read more at breitbart.com …
For gun appreciation day (1/19), the following sign will hit 2 birds with 1 stone -
BACKGROUND CHECK OBAMA!
How dare he demand background-check on us when his background was NEVER checked!
They don’t want to background-check obama, then they cannot background check We the people!
by Doug Book, staff writer
Since the December 14th murder of 27 people prevented by law from defending themselves, the American left has worked overtime to intimidate, embarrass and harass 2nd Amendment supporters into relinquishing their God given right to keep and bear arms.
Gun and accessory bans, sales by private citizens outlawed, imminent threats of confiscation, millions in new taxes and fees and countless, law abiding citizens menaced with being summarily pronounced felons—all of these threats have been brought to bear on the American public by self-righteous hypocrites.
Yet a full month has gone by since the grisly, Sandy Hook killings and the far left has done nothing but bluster and provoke. Why is that?
Few polarizing subjects are more hotly debated than gun control. Usually lost in the fray of emotional diatribes to ban guns, are the historic empirical foundations of our forefathers who fought a revolution to escape from imperial tyranny.
The true reality in today’s AmeriKa is that individual liberty is the most despised activity that any citizen can exert in their lives. Both the popular state worship culture and the authoritarian hoodlums that run the government are so fearful of armed independent citizens, that they are eager to burn the Bill of Rights. Face it, the government is committed to force you to be a ward of the state and will kill you if you resist.
The right to shoot tyrants « Bob Owens… (“Every once in a while an honest and straightforward Constitutional scholar cuts through the lies and subterfuge of Washington, DC, to lay down the plain meaning of the law in such a way it cannot be mistaken. Take it away, Judge Napolitano:”)
Every once in a while an honest and straightforward Constitutional scholar cuts through the lies and subterfuge of Washington, DC, to lay down the plain meaning of the law in such a way it cannot be mistaken.
Take it away, Judge Napolitano:
If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
‘Gun Appreciation Day’ Seeks To Emulate Chick-fil-A Success, Scheduled For Jan. 19
cnsnews.com ^ | Jan. 8, 2013 | Joe Schoffstall
Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2013 9:21:36 AM by PROCON
Pushing back against calls for greater gun control from some members in Congress, conservative groups have now launched a Chick-fil-A style ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ set to take place on January 19, 2013.
According to US News and World Report:
“If all goes according to plan, gun lovers will come out in droves on January 19 to support gun stores, gun ranges, and gun shows.”
“The national “Gun Appreciation Day,” which is being launched by a coalition of conservative and gun rights groups, will take place a day before California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is expected to introduce legislation for an assault weapon ban,” according to the Report.
“We felt that there needed to be a swift, strong statement, Chick-fil-A style, to show that we’re not only here but we’re vocal,” Gun Appreciation Day chairman and president of Republican new media consulting firm Political Media, Inc., Larry Ward tells the Report.
Gun-grabbers are using Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals ^
Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:18:01 PM by E. Pluribus Unum
ALINSKY’S RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works……….
The town is small, but the message is clear: do not infringe.
Pennsylvania Police Chief Proposes 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance infringement prevention ordinance 2nd amendmentA police chief in Gilberton, Pennsylvania, a small burough in Schuylkill County with a population of only 867 people, is proposing a ’2nd Amendment Preservation’ Ordinance that he plans to present to the city council during its January 24, 2013 meeting.
The ordinance, if adopted, would formally require the city to “enact any and all measures as may be necessary” to prevent the violation of the 2nd Amendment by any federal, state or local entity.
(Gunny G: What “The Folks” AreSaying About This! -See Reader Responses…) ~ Gun seller: ‘I can’t do it anymore’
Gun seller: ‘I can’t do it anymore’
ABC News ^ | 12-17-2012 | Chris Trenkmann
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2012 7:15:30 AM by algernon_garnock
SEMINOLE, Fla. – As a pawn shop owner, Frank James was always a big believer in gun rights and the second amendment. After all, it was his bread and butter business. But after what he saw in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday, he’s had a change of heart. “I basically broke into tears and looked up on the wall, seeing the types of firearms I am selling,” James said.
At the Loan Star Pawn store in Seminole, a glass display case that once housed several Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifles is now empty. The glass counters normally filled with handguns has been completely cleared.
“I’m not going to be part of it anymore,” James said. He has several copies of the exact rifle suspected in the massacre.
“The model, the brand, everything,” he said.
The father of four said he was especially touched knowing that his youngest child, a six-year old daughter, was the same age as many of those children who were shot to death.
“I dropped my daughter off at school this morning. That was enough for me,” James said. “Conscience wins over making money.”
The store manager came into the pawn shop Monday and saw James taking down signs advertising guns, and asked him what was going on.
“He said don’t take the guns out of the safe. We’re no longer selling them,” said Leia Thomas. “I was shocked.”
“The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” This fervent hope was expressed in 1788 by Continental Congressman Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania. (1)
Gun owners have been threatened with fines and imprisonment for wishing to defend family and property. In Connecticut, law abiding Americans were rendered defenseless by state statute, their slaughter knowingly and deliberately facilitated by politicians interested only in the implementation of an anti-gun agenda.
The murder of 20 innocent children and 7 adults in Newtown, Connecticut, horrifies all Americans. President Obama eloquently expressed our collective feelings of “overwhelming grief” and our response to “hug our children a little tighter, and we’ll tell them that we love them, and we’ll remind each other how deeply we love one another.”
Progressives now are arguing for stricter gun control. America, however, is founded on the “consent of the governed.” Americans’ sympathy for gun control, when polled by Pew after the Aurora atrocity, was about equally split between the restrictionists and those favoring the protection of the right to bear arms.
Why is it that libertarians – who don’t revere the Constitution – have no trouble understanding the Constitution but conservatives – who do revere the Constitution – have so much trouble?
Liberty Knows No Compromise
by George Reisman on August 30, 2012
The recent mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and then in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, have led to renewed demands for “gun control” aimed ultimately at depriving the individual citizen of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It is believed that if the individual were deprived of this right, such shootings would not take place, because of the sheer lack of available weaponry.
Let me say immediately that I too believe in gun control. However, I do so in the light of the knowledge that by far the largest number and the most powerful guns and other weapons are in the possession of the government. First and foremost, of course, the federal government, which has atomic and hydrogen bombs, as well as ballistic missiles with which to deliver them, fleets of warships, and thousands upon thousands of tanks, planes, artillery pieces, machine guns, and lesser weapons. State and local governments also possess considerable weaponry, though less than the federal government. But just the revolvers, rifles, shot guns, clubs, tear gas, and tasers in their possession are capable of causing serious injury and death, and frequently do so.
More than seven-in-ten respondents believe the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle should only be used by the police and other authorized persons.
Nine-in-ten Americans maintain their views on the Second Amendment, but a majority of gun owners and non-gun owners alike believe that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle should only be used by the police and other authorized persons, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
The online survey of a representative national sample of 1,010 American adults also found that support for the “shall-issue” prerogative to carry concealed weapons in public has increased over the past six months.
The disinformation mafia at Time magazine says that the phrase “’Guns don’t actually kill people’ is sometimes a refrain from gun rights advocates when they run low on arguments in a policy discussion.”
Concerning the false flag staged attack in Aurora, Colorado, the National Rifle Association is pushing for the right to bear arms and the retention of our 2nd Amendment while the talking heads at CNN want us to believe the globalist’s lie that America would be safer if semi-automatic weapons were banned from purchase. In a commentary piece, they say that America’s violent culture can be directly blamed on our ability to have guns to protect ourselves. Never does the author of the article mention that the increase in violent films, television shows and music could be a factor in brainwashing average Americans to think enacting violent outbursts would be acceptable.
Prison Planet.com » Why Are Republicans Calling To Disarm The American People? (“While the federal government is arming itself to the teeth against conservatives”)
While the federal government is arming itself to the teeth against conservatives
The recent deluge of attacks against the second amendment were completely predictable in the aftermath of the Colorado massacre,
but what perhaps wasn’t so expected was the fact that a lot of them have come from so-called Republicans.
Although normally aligned with the right to keep and bear arms, over the last week numerous self-proclaimed conservatives have proven themselves to be wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The most recent rhetorical assault on gun rights came yesterday courtesy of Reagan appointee and so-called intellectual anchor of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing, Justice Antonin Scalia.
I am not allowed to have a gun.
And that’s the truth. Literally, not allowed. My wife won’t let me have a gun. Not sure I want a gun, but it doesn’t matter. Not allowed. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’d sooner be granted my lifelong wish to frolic in a chocolate pudding bath with Jennifer Love Hewitt before my lovely wife would let me wrap my hands around a Glock Magnum 747.
READER RESPONSE ~ SEE Article @ Link…
I agree. All people who aren’t in prison should have their rights restored.
2 AUGUST 1946
On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud — forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff’s deputies — by the local political boss. They got no help.
These Americans’ absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state’s Constitution – Article 1, Section 26 – recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few “gun control” laws had been enacted.
II. The Setting
Miguel Llanos ^ | 11/23/11 | Miguel Llanos
Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2011 8:03:45 PM by Nachum
The Obama administration on Wednesday backed off a draft policy to restrict target shooting on federal land near residential areas.
In a memo, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he would direct his agency to “take no further action to develop or implement” the draft. U.S. News & World Report posted a copy of the memo on its website.
There is no Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment simply tells us that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Unlike the First Amendment’s prohibition against Congress making laws abridging certain rights we hold dear, the Second Amendment is an outright prohibition on all branches of our federal government from infringing on our right to defend ourselves.
For a right to be infringed, it must already exist. The right to self-preservation is among the inalienable Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence. Without the right to defend life and liberty, those rights are devalued to academic dogma. The right to self-preservation, the right to defend life was not arbitrarily provided to us by fiat from a crown, a delegation of elected officials or a piece of parchment.
The right comes from God (or nature if you prefer). The mere fact that you breathe, the fact that you were given the gift of reason, providence dictates your right to flourish……
Manassas, VA –(Ammoland.com)- At last count, a full half of the US Senate had signed onto a July letter to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declaring their opposition to any United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which includes infringement on US citizens’ rights to possess firearms.
While I applaud this effort, I have to say that I’m disappointed in the senators’ narrow focus in the letter.
Protecting the Second Amendment and warning Obama and Clinton not to agree to any treaty which might infringe on the rights of Americans ignores what the UN is doing to citizens of other countries. The right to arms is not just an American right, it is a basic human right extrapolated from the right to self-defense. Human beings have an individual right to defend themselves and their families, and citizens – regardless of what country – have a moral obligation to also defend others who are unable to defend themselves.
If the UN were forwarding a plan to limit voting to males only or to institute broad government controls over the press, our senators would not stop at our constitution and our borders in their denunciation of the plans. Instead they would expound upon the importance of universal suffrage and the necessity of a free press – for all people everywhere. They would not just “strongly encourage” the administration to “uphold our country’s constitutional protections,” they would demand that the administration reject and actively oppose any treaty which could be in any way construed to support such restrictions on basic rights in any nation. United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
The right to arms is as much a component of that revolutionary and successful philosophy called free speech or the right to assembly.
The right to arms is just as important a concept as the right to vote, the right to express oneself freely and publicly, and the right to a fair trial before a jury of ones peers. It is part of the progressive, liberal heritage of our nation. (From a time before the words “progressive” and “liberal” were co-opted by communists and socialists to mean government controlled.) The constitutional right to arms has roots in English Common Law, but the philosophy runs much deeper and broader than the English could ever manage because they were tied to a monarch. When America broke away from the monarchy we also cut the restraints that system placed on our understanding of liberty. We became the cutting edge, and embodiment, of liberal (libertarian) philosophy and we reaped the rewards of that philosophy. It is part of what made America so exceptional for most of the past 200 years, and the right to arms is as much a component of that revolutionary and successful philosophy as free speech or the right to assembly. It was seen as even more important than the right to vote, as that right was originally limited to only White, male, property holders while the right to arms belonged to “the people.”
Freedom is a religion which demands evangelism. We don’t have to require that other nations meet all of our standards before we will do business with them, but we should encourage right and oppose wrong – and restrictions on the individual right to arms is clearly wrong.
Members of the US Senate should understand the philosophical significance of the right to arms and the importance of promoting US philosophy and principles of freedom. Their letter focusing on only the potential impact of the proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on US citizens is much too narrow and shortsighted. Unfortunately, it seems the senators are following the lead of the NRA, who should definitely know better.
The UN ATT has been a distant rumble for the past several years with little progress being made and little exposure to the public outside of over-hyped rhetoric in fundraising letters from rights groups. I have tended to downplay concern about the treaty because it wasn’t showing much life, but now the treaty is getting closer to reality and it’s time to start worrying about something actually being passed by the middle of next year. The best way to keep that from happening is to pressure your politicians to return to principled arguments and to demand that Obama and Clinton actively oppose any arms treaty which includes restrictions on any personal firearms, ammunition, or components – not just in the US, but anywhere in the world.
Ask your Senators if they signed the letter – if not, why not – if so, thank them and encourage them to move to a more principled position. While you’re at it, if you’re a member of the NRA you might drop them a line asking why they are focusing only on the potential impact of this treaty on US gun owners rather than espousing and defending the principles of freedom for all people everywhere.
Copyright © 2011 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.
About: The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org
That all changed, though, over the next couple of centuries when states began imposing massive amounts of gun control. These restrictions turned countless Americans into mandatory victims, and many innocent lives were lost as a result.
But now, we are ever so slowly inching our way back to removing the mountain of prohibitions on being armed in public. Prior to this year, three states had stopped requiring law-abiding citizens to first get a permit to carry firearms concealed in public. And now, legislators in Wyoming have added the Cowboy State to this growing list.
Constitutional carry is the term Gun Owners of America has applied to carrying firearms without getting prior approval from the government. It recognizes that the Second Amendment is serious when it says that our gun rights “shall not be infringed.” We hear statists say that all of our rights are subject to being balanced by the “interests” of the government. Such a view would have us forget that “We the People” are the boss, and the government works for us.
We have the “interests;” but the government has only one responsibility — to do what it is told.
It protects against a tyrannical government with a strangle hold on power and guns.Administration officials now say that President Obama is looking fervently into ways to restrict the Second Amendment. Even worse, the President is looking at ways around the legislature completely, hoping that laws can be “secured strictly through executive action.
“The Department of Justice held a meeting Tuesday, the first of what is expected to be many, discussing gun laws. The main focus? The White House‘s attempts to form a gun policy and change laws.One official stated, “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum. We think that’s a good place to start.”
Read more at punditpress.blogspot.com …
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANSboblonsberry.com ^ | 01/30/11 | Bob LonsberryPosted on Monday, January 31, 2011 8:51:21 AM by shortstopI believe in the Second Amendment.I believe that when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” that it means exactly that.I believe it is an individual right – just like the rights listed through most of the Bill of Rights – and that it specifically means Americans have a constitutional right to own and carry guns.That’s what “keep and bear” means – own and carry.I believe it as absolute and important a right as the freedom of speech or religion or the press. It stands next to the right to a jury trial and the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It is as precious as our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and our Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and uncompensated government taking of our property.The Constitution isn’t a buffet. Government can’t pick and choose which parts it wants to follow. It is, every bit of it, our founding and defining document, and governmental disregard for it is a fundamental act of tyranny.I believe the Second Amendment is a civil right and the effort to protect the right to keep and bear arms is a civil rights movement.But not everyone feels that way.Snide politicians and professors and pontificators claim that the Second Amendment is about the National Guard, that it is a right given to states, not individuals. They claim that somehow the Founding Fathers thought slipping a states rights issue into a listing of individual rights was a good idea. They claim that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant that states were authorized to have maintain armies.I think that’s a bunch of crap.I think it’s typically a purposeful distortion of the historic record and common sense in an effort to advance a political agenda. I think people put forward that twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment because they don’t agree with the Second Amendment. They think the people ought not to have guns.And they are free to think that.But they are not free to subvert or pervert the Constitution. Any federal official who does so is violating his oath of office.I believe that the best way to understand what the Second Amendment means today is to look at what it meant when it was written. To help do that, I would like to refer to a document produced in Poughkeepsie, New York, in July of 1788.
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANSboblonsberry.com ^ | 01/30/11 | Bob LonsberryPosted on Monday, January 31, 2011 8:51:21 AM by shortstopI believe in the Second Amendment.I believe that when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” that it means exactly that.I believe it is an individual right – just like the rights listed through most of the Bill of Rights – and that it specifically means Americans have a constitutional right to own and carry guns.That’s what “keep and bear” means – own and carry.I believe it as absolute and important a right as the freedom of speech or religion or the press. It stands next to the right to a jury trial and the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It is as precious as our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and our Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and uncompensated government taking of our property.The Constitution isn’t a buffet. Government can’t pick and choose which parts it wants to follow. It is, every bit of it, our founding and defining document, and governmental disregard for it is a fundamental act of tyranny.I believe the Second Amendment is a civil right and the effort to protect the right to keep and bear arms is a civil rights movement.But not everyone feels that way…
Airline security has always been dysfunctional from the day the FAA took over that responsibility. They began by getting a poorly thought out mandate that all passengers be screened by people we would not trust to walk our dogs.The FAA disarmed any pilots that were permitted by local laws to carry guns.
Likewise they disarmed vetted, trained cops flying on our airplanes. That was because of the personal gun rights hating philosophy of these political patronage appointees.Criminals, illegal aliens and those with minimal mental capacity were hired to inspect the personal property and possessions of travelers.
It was never intended to be real security but a pretend effort to fool passengers into thinking they were somehow safe.That unforgettable attack of September 11, 2001 and the FAA policies enabled the murders of nearly 3,000 and damages in the hundreds of billions.
The pilots were unarmed and defenseless and two off duty cops on two of the four planes were also disarmed and helpless. Had the pilots and off-duty cops been armed, 9/11 would have been just another day.Not one FAA official or government bureaucrat was even criticized for creating the perfect conditions for the Muslim terrorists.
The TSA was created as a new ways to waste billions on government contractor fraud as thousands of hard corps unemployable people were given jobs and the power to abuse and steal the belongings of passengers.The cargo side of airline security is not seen by passengers and accordingly is largely ignored. The TSA administration has equated the public perception of their job performance by how much aggravation passengers can be put through.
To date the TSA or their predecessors have not stopped a single terrorist incident…
‘Constitutional carry’ and the challenges it presentsSeattle Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 29 September, 2010 | Dave WorkmanPosted on Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:29:41 AM by marktwainIts advocates call it “Constitutional Carry,” and three states now have it, Vermont, Alaska and Arizona; the full exercise of the right to keep and bear arms without the necessity of a license or permit of any kind.
This past weekend at the Second Amendment Foundation’s 25th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference more about GRPC in a moment, author and gun rights advocate Alan Korwin told the audience in San Francisco, “I’m from Arizona, and I don’t need no stinking permit.” For several years, Korwin has written a book on Arizona gun laws, same as this writer publishes a book on Washington gun laws.Now that the Second Amendment has been incorporated to affect state and local governments, those peaceful citizens who choose to exercise that right may be on remarkably firm legal ground, especially when it comes to interacting with the police.
Korwin didn’t say so, but he doesn’t have to. Especially in states with strong state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provisions – like Washington – citizens packing pistols is just something the hoplophobes, and police who respond to their hysterical calls to 911, are probably going to have to “get over it.”Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
He, his wife Lana, and the rest of our beloved veterans are now seeing some important results.Last week, the story broke about Irelan and how his gun rights were snatched from him by the federal government. Wayne lost his Second Amendment rights after the Department of Veterans Affairs notified the National Instant Criminal Background Check System NICS.
Congressman John Boozman, after being contacted last week, immediately promised to check into the facts and do what he could to correct this terrible injustice.Boozman appeared on NRA radio and laid out his plans on how he would attempt to stop this appalling event from occurring in the future. Congressman Boozman also commended Sergeant Irelan on his persistence in correcting this governmental fiasco and highly praised his efforts, which will benefit veterans in the future.
“Wayne has had the courage to serve his country… this might be one of his greatest contributions, serving in this way, and being willing to step forward and voice an injustice…” ~ Congressman John BoozmanBoozman definitely lived up to his end of the deal; due to his efforts, the House Veterans Affairs Committee adopted an amendment on Wednesday, which would reform the process that removes Second Amendment rights from veterans.
This amendment requires a judicial authority to declare a veteran is a threat to him or the community before his name is handed over to NICS, thereby granting our heroes due process of the system.