Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

Gun ban advocates must decide if they’re willing–and able–to kill 50,000,000+

March 23, 2013

This id from Kurt Hoffman’s Examiner. Kurt is indeed one of the best writers on the internet, and AIRBORNE of course!

A new WorldNetDaily/Wenzel poll finds that only 20 percent of American gun owners would surrender their firearms if ordered to by the government (although an additional 16 percent claimed to be “unsure”–probably not the sort who would be determined enough to face the consequences of defying such an order). From WorldNetDaily:

The scientific telephone survey was conducted March 7-12 and has a margin of error of 2.92 percentage points.

“Among gun owners, 64 percent said they would not relinquish their guns, while 20 percent said they would and another 16 percent of gun owners were unsure on the question,” he said.

In some respects, additional details of the poll carry few surprises. Those who identify themselves as “conservative” are far less likely to surrender their guns than those who call themselves “liberal,” Republicans are less likely to submit to disarmament than Democrats, men less likely than women, whites less so than other ethnic groups, and southerners are less likely than inhabitants of other regions.

But if we step back away from the minutiae of the demographic breakdown, we have somewhere between 64 and 80 percent who will not comply with any confiscatory gun bans. And make no mistake, the specter of confiscatory bans is not “paranoid, right-wing delusion,” as can be seen be seen in the obscenely misnamed “SAFE Act,” in New York, an active program of confiscation of registered firearms in California, and proposals for similar abominations at the federal level:

From Senator Feinstein’s early plans for her “assault weapon” ban, (and remember, that’s “just the beginning”), to the Obama administration’s own National Institute of Justice declaring that “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans cannot accomplish anything without confiscation, to Rep. Eliot Engel‘s (D-NY) perennial confiscatory ban of “armor piercing” handguns, the gun prohibitionist lobby very clearly considers confiscation to be a realistic goal, and not just an abstract fantasy for the distant future.

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry–and armed–Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that’s about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

The WND article quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has sponsored a bill that would ban certain types of weapons, said in Congress last week, “We cannot allow the carnage … to continue.”

She has never seen wholesale “carnage,” but if she really wants a good look, an attempt to disarm the American citizenry would get her a ringside seat for a level of carnage America hasn’t seen since the 1860s–except that there are no ringside seats for aspiring tyrants. She will be in the ring.

Who is going to disarm us? Who is going to kill us, in order to make that possible? Here’s something to think about before you answer. There are not enough jackbooted thugs to make it happen. There are not even enough grave diggers to bury the JBTs who might try. We were ready to rumble as three percent of America’s gun owners. At 20 or more times that, there won’t be enough targets to go around.

Your move, statists. Molon Labe.

SOURCE

Owning firearms is a First Amendment exercise, too!

February 8, 2013

By Alan Gottlieb

Following the hysteria generated by gun prohibitionists in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a nationwide rush on gun stores began as citizens bought semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, handguns and ammunition, in effect “making a political statement” about proposals to ban such firearms.

Making political statements is what the First Amendment is all about.

The so-called “assault rifle” has become a symbol of freedom and the right of the people to speak out for the entire Bill of Rights. Banning such firearms, which are in common use today, can no longer be viewed exclusively as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but must also be considered an attack on the First Amendment.

Many people now feel that owning a so-called “assault rifle” without fear of government confiscation defines what it means to be an American citizen. Their backlash against knee-jerk extremism is a natural reaction to overreaching government.

What should one expect in response to this heightened rhetoric and legislative hysteria? Citizens in other countries react differently to government intrusion into their lives, but Americans are uniquely independent. Among firearms owners, talk of gun bans and attempts to limit one’s ability to defend himself or herself against multiple attackers by limiting the number of rounds they can have in a pistol or rifle magazine turns gun owners into political activists.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did not intend her gun ban proposal to cause skyrocketing sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, but that’s what happened. She must live with the consequences of her shameless political exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

President Barack Obama never envisioned the rush to purchase rifle and pistol magazines, but telling American citizens they shouldn’t have something is like sending a signal they need to acquire those things immediately.

Vice President Joe Biden never imagined his efforts would result in a tidal wave of new members and contributions to gun rights organizations, making the firearms community stronger and more united in opposition to any assault on the Second Amendment.

Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps they should take a day off and visit the monuments at Lexington and Concord, and reflect on what prompted those colonists to stand their ground. It was the first time in American history that the government moved to seize arms and ammunition from its citizens, and it went rather badly for the British.

Beneath the surface many Americans are convinced that we may be approaching a point when the true purpose of the Second Amendment is realized. Underscoring this is a new Pew Research Center poll that, for the first time, shows a majority (53 percent) of Americans believe the government is a threat to their rights and freedoms.

Exacerbating the situation is a perceived indifference from the administration toward the rights of firearms owners who have committed no crime, but are being penalized for the acts of a few crazy people.

It is time to lower the rhetoric and allow cooler heads to prevail. The demonization of millions of loyal, law-abiding Americans and the firearms they legally own must cease. If we are to have a rational dialogue about firearms and violent crime, we must recognize that the very people who could be most affected have a First Amendment right to be heard.

Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, who cautioned us more than 150 years ago that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A half-century before him, Benjamin Franklin taught us that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Their spirits are calling to us now.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Surrender monkey’s: Flag this message Boehner and Cantor Surrender… Again

January 22, 2013

Just hours ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he will postpone his assault on the filibuster until Thursday.

This battle is far from over, but thanks to your consistent action and quick work to turn up the pressure, it’s clear Harry Reid is scrambling to find the votes he needs.

But right now, there’s another all-out EMERGENCY C4L needs your help to combat.

Tomorrow, in a push led by Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the U.S. House is scheduled to vote on a plan to increase the debt limit by… infinity.

You see, passage of this scheme would hand President Obama a blank check to spend whatever he can get through Congress before this summer!

That’s why it’s vital you give Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, and your U.S. Representative a piece of your mind IMMEDIATELY!

Only weeks ago, as they caved in to President Obama’s demands for higher spending and increased taxes, Republican leadership told you and me not to worry.

Sure, our nation is mired in over $16 TRILLION of debt.

Sure, it’s common sense that Congress needs to rein in its reckless, drunken spending.

But first, they had to cave in to President Obama on economy-crushing higher taxes (and just you never mind that their plan hiked spending, too)…

The good news, we were told, was the new debt ceiling fight would surely give fiscal conservatives the “leverage” they’d been seeking to cut spending!

Now, those outright LIES have been totally exposed.

It seems Speaker Boehner and Eric Cantor are afraid to EVER stand up to President Obama and Harry Reid’s demands for more spending.

In fact, under this new scheme, whatever new spending hikes, massive new boondoggles, and outrageous new assaults on our liberties President Obama can ram through an increasingly compliant Congress by May 19 will be automatically funded with borrowing increases.

And with the Federal Reserve eager to buy up as much debt as they can with dollars created out of thin air, I fear what this could mean to our already fragile economy.

That’s why it’s vital you take action right away!

Please call House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor at once.

Speaker Boehner –  (202) 225-0600

Majority Leader Cantor –  (202) 225-4000

Tell them exactly what you think of this new scheme to grow government, chicken out from taking a stand again, and stick you with the bill – and do not mince words.

While you’re at it, call your U.S. Representative:

(202) 224-3121

Tell your Representative to vote “NO!” on this radical scheme before it’s too late.

Our window to make our voices heard is rapidly closing, so please act at once!

In Liberty,

These people are “leaders?” I caught a lot of hell for calling Romney “obamalite” but take a look please, at most of the rest of the Republicans! We need a whole new batch of Libertarians in places of power. No, not the whack jobs that caused me to leave the party, but the types that Ronald Reagan referred to as the heart and soul of Conservatism. My quote may not be exact, but you get the picture. Liberty and Freedom of the common man and woman most often provide solutions for virtually all of our problems. While government just screws things up beyond belief. Usually via unintended consequences. Is the majority of America, even including the illegal aliens residing here really all that stuck on stupid..? Free cheese isn’t free people, and Freedom isn’t, and never has been “free.”

The Bill of Rights, according to Common Law. Come and take them from me. God willing!

Epic fail obama pundit get handed her head on national show

January 19, 2013
Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Gun Owners of America on MSNBC tells it like it is.

Plus she can’t seem to figure out who she is trying to debate.

In any case the point of the add was that the elites are hypocrites when it comes to their own protection or their families. Whether you agree with more police in schools, armed teachers and principles or not.

http://on.fb.me/ZV4MMi

Not to mention that already they, as in Governor Cuomo and others are already talking about confiscation. In other words, even more ex post facto law. For years I have raged about the insult to our freedoms imposed by the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act’s ex post facto provision. Well, I don’t have any problem with disarming people in the heat of the moment or even for as long as it takes to complete consoling and jail time. But damn it! If you are going to take someones rights away forever then convict them of a felony, period. But no, based upon political correctness and misandry (sexism) they trashed out the Bill of Rights, and that has set the groundwork for even more.

‘Obama has dramatically overshot’

January 17, 2013

President Obama outlined several major legislative initiatives that he claims will reduce gun-related violence, but representatives at Gun Owners of America say the proposals will assault Americans’ right to keep and bear arms and do nothing to prevent senseless killings.

The Obama legislative agenda includes several controversial items, starting with universal background checks to make sure guns are not purchased by felons or “someone legally prohibited from buying” a firearm.

Mike Hammond has served in the offices of three U.S. senators and is now general counsel at Gun Owners of America. He said this provision should be opposed on two grounds. His first concern centers around the people Obama thinks should be prohibited from buying guns.

“In about 150,000 cases, we’re talking about veterans who came back from Baghdad or Kabul, perhaps sought counseling for a traumatic experience and, as a result, the Veteran’s Administration appointed a fiduciary to supervise their financial affairs and then sent their names to this secret list in West Virginia that prohibits people from owning guns,” Hammond said. “These people didn’t do anything wrong. They served their country honorably, and there’s no reason they should lose their constitutional rights because they sought someone to counsel them.”

While Hammond fears law-abiding Americans could easily be blocked from exercising their Second Amendment rights, he also claims involving the government in each firearm transaction sets the stage for more heavy-handed actions from Uncle Sam.

“It’s increasingly clear to us that the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are using these secret lists to begin to compile the beginnings of a national gun registry,” Hammond said. “I personally drafted the Smith Amendment, which would prohibit them from using the Brady Check in order to create a national gun registry. But when senators have recently asked the FBI, ‘How are you complying with the Smith Amendment and how long are you keeping the names?’ they’re told to go take a long walk off a short pier. There is a danger that the Obama administration wants to create this gun registry using this universal check. There is no way in heaven’s name that we are going to consider anything like that.”

Hammond said a national gun registry is a slippery slope to government confiscation of weapons once the government knows where they are. He uses recent events in New York state as an example, since Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed new gun-control legislation and then alluded to confiscating firearms that are now deemed illegal.

In pushing for the background check, Obama contended that 40 percent of gun sales have no background checks. Hammond said that statistic is pure fiction.

“They asked the FBI about that and basically the FBI said that the gun-control advocates, for lack of a better term, just pulled that statistic out of their ear,” he said. “I mean they just made that statistic up.”

The biggest congressional fight will likely center around Obama’s call for a ban on assault weapons and his demand that magazines carry a limit of 10 bullets. The president said weapons used in a theater of war should not be brought into a movie theater.

“That is a lie. When I was in the military, I had a weapon that was designed for the theater of war. It was called an M-16 rifle,” Hammond said. “It was a fully automatic rifle. Unless you get a special license from the FBI, you can’t own one of those guns in America. That is an absolute lie.”

“What the AR-15 is is a gun that is designed cosmetically to look like a full automatic but operates nothing like it,” he said.

Hammond also rejects the proposed limit on bullets in a magazine, saying shooters like the ones in Connecticut and Colorado could just as easily have brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and achieved the same horrific response.

Looking at the big picture of the debate, Hammond believes that Obama reached too far in this agenda.

“Obama, in this case, has dramatically overshot. I think he has overshot in a way that is going to destroy his entire gun-control package,” argued Hammond, who said Obama initially leaned toward restoring the ban on semi-automatic weapons that was in effect between 1994-2004. He said that ban didn’t address some of the more recent cosmetic features on guns, like the one used in the Sandy Hook massacre, so the scope of this legislation got much bigger.

“So he began adding more guns and more guns and more guns,” Hammond said. “The people who know what guns are out there tell us that the resulting legislation now will ban probably about 50 percent of the long guns currently in circulation and about 80 percent of the handguns in current circulation. Let me state that again. Barack Obama and his proposals would ban most guns currently in circulation.”

Hammond also rejected the president’s 23 executive actions, particularly the ones that encourage doctors to ask patients about guns and share that information with the government.

THE FULL STORY ON OBAMA’S MASSIVE GUN GRAB:

Poll: Seeds of tyranny present in America

Obama plan: ‘Assault-weapon’ ban, universal background checks

47 states revolt against Obama gun control

Rush Limbaugh: Obama ‘wants people to snap’

‘Obama has dramatically overshot’

Oops! Gun-map hate mail goes to wrong paper

Constitution ‘no impediment’ to Obama

Chicago murders top Afghanistan death toll

Virginia’s solution to guns in school

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-has-dramatically-overshot/#YwDHMA50UIfWr23h.99

Oathkeeper 151: Tells it like it is. No Nuremberg defense allowed!

January 17, 2013

In this video, Oathkeeper151, a New Jersey Police Officer who has been a member of Oath Keepers since 2009, makes it clear that he will not obey orders that violate the Bill of Rights. In particular, he says he will not be used as a tool of oppression against the American people who resist and refuse to comply with infringement on their right to bear arms, such as legislation or executive orders that decree they must register, get finger printed and photographed, like a criminal.

He asks his fellow officers what they are going to do if that happens. Will they keep their oaths? Here is his own description of his video:

In this video I ask my fellow Police Officers what they would do, if they were given an unlawful order. I also touch on the Assault Weapons Ban introduced by Senator Feinstein, and how this bill has the potential of putting us Police Officers in a very bad/even fatal predicament.

I spoke to him on the phone and he made it clear that he is not afraid to take this public stand because this is what needs to happen.  He says the peace officers across America need to stand up and let the people know that they are on the side of the Bill of Rights, and that they will protect the rights of the people. In one of the comments on his video, another officer had this to say:

I’ll lay my badge down, stop doing what I love if someone tries to make me do something immoral or unconstitutional. Good video, take care

Oathkeeper151 agrees. He told me that if there were door to door raids for guns against Americans who refused to comply with registration or bans, he would either defend the people with his badge on, stepping between them and the oath breakers doing the raids, or he would lay his badge down on the table and then go join the people in resisting. He loves his work as a police officer, but his oath, and his responsibility to protect the people of his community, is more important than his job. His oath comes first. The rights of the people come first…. and he is not alone.

 

Molon Labe,

Stewart Rhodes

Founder of Oath Keepers

 

Civil War or Revolution?

January 12, 2013

It all became academic when the big government authoritarians decided that the time was ripe to disarm those that they laird it over. Mob rule, also known as political correctness and democracy has raised it’s populist ugly head against our republic. The Bill of Rights means nothing any longer. Sure, the current debate is about the Second Amendment but that’s simply a cover. Just look at how the entire Bill of Rights has been whittled away over the years with the blessings of the Supreme Court.

The electorate in general no longer respects the oath taken to protect and defend the Constitution. Rather they by and large do their best to chip away freedom and liberty since the don’t have the courage to force a Constitutional Convention. Cut the lies and admit that what their doing is no less than the commission or treason. Legal definitions be damned! No more squirming around by better than thou attorney types call it what it is.

How many as a percentage brought about freedom from the British? I have read that it was as low as three percent up to twenty percent. The point being that it was not very many. There are a lot more now, and those people are angry, very angry.

While many of the treasonous leaders of these not so United States are plotting the over through of the foundations that made this nation the envy of the world others are quietly forming actual militia’s with the full blown intention of destroying those that wish to destroy the enemies those that prefer freedom. Not simply the outlaws in the Senate and House of Representatives but organizations such as the  Southern Positive Law Center as many groups that hate liberty.

An actual civil war or full full blown revolution is about to unfold. The neo- conservatives and neo-communists will the ones that will to be the ones that brought the blood baths. People are sick of talk and negotiation that just chips away the rights and liberty that belong of the people.

Time will tell to be sure when it comes to just will happen.

 

Harry Reid Prepares to Annihilate Second Amendment, what next freedom of expression..?

January 3, 2013

“Our Founders intended the Senate to be a body where legislation was slowed down and subject to improvement through extended debate and amendment. [Harry] Reid’s proposed ‘reforms’ would remove two of the most fundamental rights traditionally reserved to all Senators — to freely debate and amend legislation. I shall not stand for that.” — Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

On Election Day last November, several Democrat Senators were campaigning for reelection in pro-gun states.  And in order to get their constituents’ votes, they promised fealty to the Second Amendment.

Patrick, on November 6, Democrat Senators Joe Manchin (WV), Bob Casey (PA) and Jon Tester (MT) all won their respective elections.  These seats, among others, were crucial to helping Harry Reid return to the top post in the Senate.

But only a month after the election returns were tallied, the Senate — under Majority Leader Harry Reid’s control — is now crusading to implement:

* Gun bans on semiautomatic firearms and magazines;

* An effective ban on gun shows;

* A ban on private gun sales, without going through a gun dealer; and,

* Changes in the Senate rules which would allow them to ban guns with a mere 50 Senate votes.

This last proposal is particularly insidious.  Gun grabbers are not going to be able to get 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster of gun control.  But, with the help of fake “pro-gun” Senate Democrats, they may be able to get 50.

So the question of whether Senate Democrats will need 50 votes or 60 votes will determine whether gun control -– and much of Obama’s agenda -– will be slammed through and passed into law.

This brings us to the “nuclear option.”

This is a trick which anti-gun Democrats intend to use the first day of the Senate session in order to obliterate the Senate rules and clear the way for 50-vote passage of gun control.

Your senator’s vote on the “nuclear option” may be the most important gun-related vote he casts during the 113th Congress.  It may be the difference between whether Obama can secure Senate passage of gun bans, magazine bans, gun show bans, and bans on private gun sales.

Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the Senate is just following its precedents.

But that’s a bald-faced lie.  As Democrats made clear during the Bush administration when the Republicans were contemplating the “nuclear option,” the nuclear option has been threatened, but the trigger has never been pulled.

Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the “nuclear option” can only be invoked on the first day.

That’s a lie.  Senate Rule 5, Paragraph 2, provides that the Senate rules continue from one Congress to the next, unless changed by 67 votes (needed to break a filibuster of rules changes).  If the Senate can use brute force to obliterate Rule 5 by 50 votes, it can use brute force to obliterate any rule at any time by 50 votes.

This is a major vote that will have huge ramifications for our republic.  Our gun rights are just one of the many freedoms that are on the chopping block right now.  And if Harry Reid can squelch his opposition by nuking the filibuster, it will be the first step towards completely obliterating our Constitution.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and tell them that the vote on the “nuclear option” will be the most important gun control vote of the 113th Congress.  Urge them to vote AGAINST changing the Senate rules.  Tell them to vote AGAINST the “nuclear option.”

 You may also phone the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.

SOURCE

 

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution..?

January 1, 2013

People like this author need their butts kicked! Period!

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

SOURCE As USUAL

What “observers?” The jerks that support taking people’s property by the government simply to increase tax revenue? The cretins that are all for freedom of expression just so long as that speech agrees with what they agree with? The mentally ill that seek to spread their Hoplophobia and turn us all into victims in a nationwide free fire zone? Perhaps the author is referring to those that engage in legalized theft from those that labored and took risks to become better off than their neighbor’s? Maybe those that are fighting sexism in our society, just so long as the sexism isn’t being perpetrated by a female. Or by the racist’s that abound in America, but only those that are not of northern european decent?

Perhaps all of them?

I would suggest that we give up on people such as the author, and send them packing.

Stuck on Stupid Defined: Piers Morgan CNN

December 21, 2012

There is a reason we rebelled against English rule. What is the reason that the English gave up The Rights of Englishmen?

So then, what’s all this “assault rifle” nonsense?

A Shopping list?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 181 other followers

%d bloggers like this: