Sheriff Joe Arpaio Just Issued This BRUTAL WARNING To Obama And PATRIOTS ARE CHEERING
by Dean james
When Obama returns from his tax-payer funded Christmas vacation in Hawaii he is set to put the most aggressive gun grab order into action. That’s what dictators do. Disarm the citizens. Well, Barry, good luck with that one.
WE WILL NOT COMPLY! And neither will hundreds of law enforcement officials including the one and only Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio!
On December 18, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio referenced President Obama’s pending executive action on gun control and said executive order or not, guns will not be surrendered, Breitbart reports.
Arpaio talked about a number of gun-related issues and indicated that an ongoing problem is that guns and gun control have become part of the “political situation.” As a result, Democrats react to the criminal misuse of guns by grandstanding to punish law-abiding citizens with gun control.
The same thing happens after a terror attack, such as the one that took place in San Bernardino on December 2. Since then, Democrats have pushed to add the no-fly list to background checks, to expand background checks, to pass an “assault weapons” ban, and to institute and fund a national gun buyback.
Now, Jen Psaki, White House communications director, says executive action to go around Congress and expand gun control will be coming in “weeks, not months.”
Arpaio addressed this pending executive action, saying, “Obama does know we have the Second Amendment, right?” He added, “I’ve said it before. I’m not surrendering the guns. He can give an executive order saying we’ve got to collect the guns, and I’m not going to do it.”
Sheriff Arpaio has never liked Obama. Obama has handcuffed the officers from protecting the border and arresting illegal aliens. Arpaio knows Obama’s birth certificate is a complete fraud. He also slams Obama’s lack of foreign policy and his non existent war on terrorism.
Arpaio points out that every time Obama picks up his ‘phone and pen’ he is bypassing Congress and violating the Constitution.
Sheriff Arapio has a warning for Obama on what Americans will do if Obama implements unconstitutional gun laws saying that “there’d be a revolution” if a president ever issued such an order.
The Sheriff is right.
American citizens will NEVER surrender our guns to the government. That would be suicide. We don’t live in a dictatorship. We have fought for our rights and freedom and we refuse to cave to some Kenyan Muslim community organizer commie.
Trey Gowdy Grills DHS Official on Due Process
Breaking: Shocking Gun Confiscation Begins in New York!
We’ve known this was coming. When New York State Legislators passed laws to allow municipalities to confiscate law-abiding citizens’ firearms, it was only a matter of time before they decided to exercise that power.
On October 22, 2015, the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) called a member of a motorcycle club and informed him that his pistol permits were under review because of his alleged membership in the Pagans MC. For those of you who don’t know, the Pagans Motorcycle Club is what the FBI calls an “outlaw” motorcycle club.
The FBI alleges that the club is involved in organized crime.
When the SCPD found out that one of its county’s legal gun owners was a member in this club, they ordered him to come in for an “interview” and to bring his 10 legally owned and registered handguns with him.
But they had no intention of interviewing him. When he arrived, the Police ordered him to surrender his firearms and pistol permit… all because he is a member of a group that the police don’t like.
Now to be clear, this club member (who prefers to remain nameless) has a squeaky clean record. He has never been convicted of a crime. His motorcycle club membership not withstanding, he has done nothing to get put on the police department’s radar.
But because of his association with a motorcycle club, something that is a First Amendment right, the police just confiscated his guns. Unbelievable…
If this can happen somewhere in America, it can happen anywhere in America!
Whatever the motorcycle club has been accused of is a separate issue. If police are allowed to just confiscate guns from people because they don’t like the groups they’ve joined, it’s easy to see how that can get completely out of control.
A lot of liberals are pushing for the National Rifle Association to be labeled as a “terror group.” No, that’s not a joke. That was actually a headline in the New York Daily News earlier this month. Can you imagine if a police department confiscated your guns because they didn’t like your NRA membership? Or they didn’t like the gun club you belonged to?
This is where it is heading. You no longer need to be convicted of a crime to have your guns taken away. You no longer need to be admitted to a mental hospital. In Obama’s America, hearsay is enough.
Don’t we have rights anymore? Don’t we have the Bill of Rights?
Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
This man had his guns away not because he committed a crime, or was even suspected of committing a crime. His guns were confiscated because police didn’t like the motorcycle club he belonged to.
If we let this slide then we’re all in danger!
Time and time again, we have warned that registration always leads to confiscation. Here is proof of that. Without the registry, police would never have been able to target this man.
Here is someone who jumped through all the hoops. He underwent a background check, bought his pistols legally, and then registered them with the state. He had no criminal record.
I want you to think about all the clubs and organizations you belong to. Now imagine that your local police department started violating your constitutional rights because they didn’t like the club/organization. Picture them confiscating your guns, stopping you from voting, or arresting you for speaking your mind at a town hall meeting all because of your clubs and associations.
When we allow injustice to slide against one of us, then it puts all of us at risk!
When Obama met with police chiefs from across the country earlier this week, he pushed for the very universal registration scheme that made this injustice possible.
At the time of the founding, only 3% of American colonists took up arms to fight against British tyranny. The other 97% either resisted passively, were too afraid to do anything, or remained loyal to the crown.
I am calling on you to be part of that 3% now. Get loud and DEMAND that Congress put a stop to these gun confiscations once and for all!
The Gun Control Farce
By Thomas Sowell
President Obama’s intrusion into the mourning community of Roseburg, Oregon, in order to promote his political crusade for stronger gun control laws, is part of a pattern of his using various other sites of shooting rampages in the past to promote this long-standing crusade of the political left.
The zealotry of gun control advocates might make some sense if they had any serious evidence that more restrictive gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes. But they seldom even discuss the issue in terms of empirical evidence.
Saving lives is serious business. But claiming to be saving lives and refusing to deal with evidence is a farce. Nor is the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association the real issue, despite how much the media and the intelligentsia focus on them.
If there is hard evidence that stronger gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or reduce murders in particular, the Second Amendment can be repealed, as other Amendments have been repealed. Constitutional Amendments exist to serve the people. People do not exist to be sacrificed to Constitutional Amendments.
But if hard evidence shows that restrictions on gun ownership lead to more gun crimes, rather than less, then the National Rifle Association’s opposition to those restrictions makes sense, independently of the Second Amendment.
Since this all boils down to a question of hard evidence about plain facts, it is difficult to understand how gun control laws should have become such a heated and long-lasting controversy.
There is a huge amount of statistical evidence, just within the United States, since gun control laws are different in 50 different states and these laws have been changed over time in many of these states. There are mountains of data on what happens under restrictive laws and what happens when restrictions are lifted.
Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.
The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.
Among the other facts that gun control zealots consistently ignore are data on how many lives are saved each year by a defensive use of guns. This seldom requires actually shooting. Just pointing a loaded gun at an assailant is usually enough to get him to back off, often in some haste.
There have been books and articles based on voluminous statistics, including statistics comparing gun laws and gun crime rates in different countries, such as “Guns and Violence” by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University. Seldom do these factual studies back up what the gun control zealots are saying.
Why would an ultimately factual question about the consequences of gun control laws divide people along ideological lines? Only if at least one set of people were more devoted to their vision than to the facts.
This shows up when gun control zealots are asked whether whatever new law they propose would have prevented the shooting rampage that they are using as a stage from which to propose a new clampdown on gun ownership. Almost always, the new law being proposed would not have made the slightest difference. That too is part of the farce. A deadly farce.
So is the automatic assertion that whoever engaged in a shooting rampage was a madman. Yet these supposedly crazy shooters are usually rational enough to choose some “gun-free zone” for their murderous attacks. They seem more rational than gun control zealots who keep creating more “gun-free zones.”
Gun control zealots are almost always people who are lenient toward criminals, while they are determined to crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.
Who Regulates “A Well Regulated Militia”?
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D
Anyone who pays attention to contemporary debates and discussions among this country’s “constitutionalists” and “patriots” about the meaning of the Second Amendment soon comes upon the contention that the phrase “[a] well regulated Militia” does not refer to “regulation” by government. Instead, it supposedly means that the individuals who form a “militia” on their own are themselves to put it into proper order, in terms of organization, equipment, training, and discipline suitable for the purposes of a “militia” as they understand those purposes—without any control, direction, influence, assistance, or other participation by public officials.
A. Now, the effect of this theory on the goal of the Second Amendment—“the security of a free State”—indicates that more is involved in the theory’s promulgation than mere industrial-strength ignorance on the part of its proponents. Nonetheless, that ignorance should be exposed and examined.
1. The notion that the phrase “[a] well regulated Militia” does not refer to “regulation” by government abstracts from the context in which the phrase appears. That phrase is not some generality without a concrete legal position and historical foundation. Rather, it is specific to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment itself is not some detached and airy generality, either, but instead is an Amendment of the original Constitution. Therefore the meaning of the phrase “[a] well regulated Militia” must be tied to, informed by, and applied in consistency with the original Constitution. And the original Constitution plainly refutes the argument that “[a] well regulated Militia” has no connection to government with respect to the source of the needed “regulation”.
First, the original Constitution refers to “the Militia of the several States”, not “the Militia in the several States”. This is because the Militia which existed at the time of ratification of the Constitution, and for many decades prior thereto in the Colonies and then the independent States, were Colonial and State governmental institutions, not private establishments. Self-evidently, the Militia—howsoever they may have been “regulated” as a matter of fact—were “regulated” as a matter of law by government, not by private individuals, because they were integral parts of the governments in all of the States and Colonies, not mere private associations. Because the original Constitution intends these institutions to continue as permanent parts of its federal system—an intention which the Second Amendment does not negate, challenge, or question—“the Militia of the several States” today are, in terms of their governmental character, the same as “the Militia of the several States” in the late 1700s. So the “regulation” of “the Militia of the several States” today must be just as governmental in nature as was the “regulation” of “the Militia of the several States”, and of the Colonies which preceded them, throughout the 1700s and much of the 1600s. Certainly no basis exists for contending that each of “the Militia of the several States” at the time of ratification of the Constitution (1788) was ever considered by anyone—with respect to any of its characteristics, including its governmental nature—to be other than “[a] well regulated Militia” as the Second Amendment was understood at the time of its ratification (1791).
Second, the original Constitution delegates to Congress the powers “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”; “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”; and “[t]o provide * * * for governing such Part of the[ Militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States”. Self-evidently, these are powers of “regulation”. Combining the Second Amendment with the original Constitution compels the conclusion that “[a] well regulated Militia” is one which Congress “regulates” in the foregoing manner for the foregoing purposes. Congress, of course, is the body within the General Government in which the original Constitution “vest[s]” “[a]ll [of the] legislative Powers” it grants. Therefore, Congress’s exercise of its powers related to the Militia constitutes obviously and inescapably governmental “regulation” of the Militia.
Third, the original Constitution confers on the President of the United States the position of “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. Obviously, the President’s capability in law of giving commands to the Militia constitutes an important form of “regulation”. Combining the Second Amendment with the original Constitution compels the conclusion that “[a] well regulated Militia” is one of which the President is the “Commander in Chief” under certain circumstances. The President is the highest executive officer of the General Government. Therefore, his position as “Commander in Chief” constitutes yet another element of obviously and inescapably governmental “regulation” of the Militia.
2. For additional proof, one can go back in American legal history a step farther, to the Articles of Confederation. They provided that “every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred”. “[E]very state”, not private individuals. And if the Militia were to be “well regulated and disciplined” through the actions of the States—which, of course, were then (as they are now) quintessentially governmental institutions—then such “regulation” and “discipline” could have been nothing less than governmental in origin, character, and effect.
3. For another measure of compelling evidence, those who still remain skeptical can consult the entire pre-constitutional history of the Militia in the Colonies and the independent States. My book The Sword and Sovereignty (available as a CD-ROM at amazon.com) elucidates the legal history of the Militia by focusing on two representative Colonies and then independent States—Rhode Island and Virginia. If such a short book—of only 2,250 pages, with a mere 4,445 footnotes and 2,174 endnotes which refer to original sources—is less than convincing, one can consult the multi-volume set put out by the Selective Service System, Backgrounds of Selective Service, Military Obligation: The American Tradition, A Compilation of the Enactments of Compulsion From the Earliest Settlements of the Original Thirteen Colonies in 1607 Through the Articles of Confederation in 1789, Special Monograph No. 1, Volume II (14 Parts) (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1947). The latter compendium reproduces a great mass of charters, ordinances, acts, and statutes relating to the Militia in all of the thirteen Colonies and then independent States during the entire pre-constitutional era. The gist of both of these studies—and especially of mine, which delves into the subject in far more painstaking detail than does the Selective Service’s compilation—is that the Militia in this country were always the products of charters, ordinances, acts, and statutes—and, as such, they were both created and “regulated” by governments in, and formed parts of the governments of, the Colonies and States. They were not in any way, shape, or form mere private associations which individuals cobbled together and then “regulated” on their own, independent of government.
4. And, of course, if one goes forward in time to the post-constitutional period he can find the very same pattern of “regulating” the Militia by means of statutes passed by Congress pursuant to the Constitution and by the States’ legislatures pursuant to their constitutions.
B. The evidence on this score being overwhelming, one must marvel how anyone who calls himself a “constitutionalist” or a “patriot” (or who, whatever he calls himself, is even a kindergarten student of American law and history) can possibly deny it with a straight face. Or, perhaps more to the point, why anyone wants to deny it. Or, as is generally the case, why anyone pretends that the evidence does not exist, by saying nothing at all about it.
1. In some instances, of course, ignorance coupled with sloth provides a sufficient explanation. Unfortunately, the ranks of self-styled “constitutionalists” and “patriots” these days are filled to overflowing with people whose heads are stuffed with glittering ideas and glib phrases which they have picked up second-hand, but the demerits and other limitations of which they have never bothered to investigate for themselves. Had they performed the requisite research, they would know that “[a] well regulated Militia” must be “regulated” by government, because every such Militia is and must be a governmental establishment in its own right, as has been the case throughout American history. They do not know this—and do not care that they do not know it—because to appear as “experts” by pouring out gibberish across the Internet for consumption by an uniformed and gullible public is far easier than pouring over history books for their own edification.
2. In other cases, intellectual arrogance coupled with self-interest is a plausible explanation. Of all contemporary “constitutionalists” and “patriots”, ultra-libertarians in particular are driven by a philosophical idée fixe—namely, that government rests upon compulsion of individuals, that compulsion of individuals (especially themselves) is almost always bad, and therefore that government’s involvement in any aspect of human life (especially as it relates to them) should usually be opposed. Naturally, they inject this prejudice into their misreading of the Constitution. In place of the true Militia—participation in which is compulsory for every able-bodied adult in the community, pursuant to governmental “regulation”—they substitute mythical “private militia”, participation in which is entirely voluntary, pursuant to “regulation” by the members themselves. And they refuse to consider any evidence—no matter how obviously relevant—that calls this fantasy into question.
3. I suspect, however, that the most significant impetus behind the notion that the phrase “[a] well regulated Militia” does not refer to “regulation” by government emanates from a source far more sinister and dangerous than mere ignorance or selfishness. In this situation one must ask, cui bono? Who will benefit most if those common Americans who pay attention to the Second Amendment come to believe in that fallacy? Certainly not those Americans, or any others for that matter.
As I have documented and explained in my books The Sword and Sovereignty, Thirteen Words, Three Rights, and most recently By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”, the Militia are the key institutions through which WE THE PEOPLE can protect and exercise popular sovereignty through popular self-government. The Militia are the most important institutions of government, because in a republic founded upon the principles of popular sovereignty and popular self-government THE PEOPLE must enjoy both the legal authority and the institutional capability to assume direct control of the governmental apparatus whenever the circumstances warrant such action, and to defend their government from all threats, foreign and domestic, with whatever degree of force may be required. If, however, one accepts the notion that the Militia are not part and parcel of government—but that there exists an unbridgeable separation, even an inevitable antagonism, between the Militia and government—then, because the Militia are composed of the body of THE PEOPLE, one must also infer that there exists no less of a separation and an antagonism between THE PEOPLE and government. Inherent in that conclusion is a denial of popular sovereignty and popular self-government altogether. WE THE PEOPLE are no longer themselves the ultimate authorities in and over government which they administer by themselves, but are reduced to merely the abject subjects of government which is administered by someone else.
Now who stands to gain from having the latter, false relationship between THE PEOPLE and government gain credibility in this country? Certainly not THE PEOPLE in general. Certainly not any reader of this commentary in particular. Those who intend to profit from this deception are the Forces of Darkness who lurk behind such agencies as the Department of Homeland Security and such subversive private organizations as a certain notorious and obnoxious “poverty” law center. The very last thing these aspiring tyrants and miscreants want is for any common American to understand that the Militia always were, still are, and must be governmental institutions—indeed, the most important and most powerful of the institutions of popular sovereignty and popular self-government. So first and foremost the Forces of Darkness need to deceive those common Americans who do pay attention to the Second Amendment into believing that the Militia are not governmental establishments at all: that “[a] well regulated Militia” has nothing to do with government.
By channeling those Americans who do become interested in the concept of the Militia into the blind alley of “private militia”—that is, faux “militia” which are not “well regulated” in the one-and-only constitutional sense of that term, and therefore can lay no claim whatsoever to governmental authority—the Forces of Darkness can demonize those Americans as “anti-government” extremists, even as “domestic terrorists”, and target them for harassment, and ultimately elimination, by “law enforcement agencies” acting in the name of government against the supposed enemies of government. In this way, the Forces of Darkness can gain three objectives:
(1) They can impede revitalization of the true constitutional Militia, because next to no “constitutionalists” and “patriots” will come to realize what actually needs to be done to revitalize those institutions, and therefore will take no action along the proper lines.
(2) The Forces of Darkness can render utterly ineffective everything that “constitutionalists” and “patriots” try to do with “private militia”. For “private militia” can wield no governmental authority, and therefore are useless for the purpose of asserting popular sovereignty under the political conditions which prevail today. Thus, every precious moment of time and invaluable ounce of resources spent on “private militia” are wasted—and, of course, having been flushed away can never be redirected towards revitalizing the constitutional Militia.
(3) By thus frustrating revitalization of the constitutional Militia, the Forces of Darkness can make unobtainable for common Americans “the security of a free State”. And the “unfree State” which results will then be permanently under their control, because WE THE PEOPLE will have no means to throw off its tyranny.
Worst of all is that the Forces of Darkness are achieving these goals on the cheap, because “constitutionalists” and “patriots” are—perhaps unthinkingly, but nonetheless effectively—doing their subversive work for them. How the Forces of Darkness must be belly laughing while “constitutionalists” and “patriots” disarm themselves and every other American of the most important weapon WE THE PEOPLE can wield through the Militia: namely, governmental authority—and not just governmental authority in general, but supreme constitutional authority in particular.
To be sure, no reader of this commentary is compelled to subscribe to any of this. As the Supreme Court affirmed in Cantwell v. Connecticut, in America freedom of belief is absolute, no matter how childishly ridiculous one’s beliefs may be. But, as Richard Weaver once astutely pointed out, “ideas have consequences”. And bad ideas tend to beget catastrophes. The notion that the phrase “[a] well regulated Militia” does not refer to “regulation” by government is an egregiously bad—indeed, an anti-constitutional and a really, really stupid—idea. It is incompatible with, and directly threatens, the survival of popular sovereignty and popular self-government in this country. After all, for a republic based upon the principle of popular self-government to survive, THE PEOPLE themselves must participate directly and decisively in government, not sit on the political sidelines as idle spectators while others govern in their stead and to their detriment. THE PEOPLE themselves must take up key positions inside the governmental system, with legal authority over the system, in order to control the system—and then must exercise whatever measure of control the circumstances may warrant. The Constitution itself declares in unequivocal terms that the key positions in the federal system it created are to be held by the Militia: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. Not optional, but necessary. Necessary. Only by having “well regulated Militia” in every State, “regulated” by government according to constitutional principles so that the Militia are the integral and puissant components of government which the Constitution intends them to be, will WE THE PEOPLE themselves be able to employ the Militia to regulate government as government should be regulated in strict compliance with popular sovereignty throughout the federal system.
But perhaps, along with many self-styled “constitutionalists” and “patriots”, some readers of this commentary imagine that they know better than the Founders of this country. Perhaps they imagine that “[a] well regulated Militia” is not “necessary to the security of a free State”. Perhaps they imagine that “private militia” can be “well regulated” according to principles diametrically opposed to those that Americans applied to the Militia from the earliest Colonial days. Perhaps they imagine even that, notwithstanding a lack of constitutional authority, “private militia” can protect “a free State” (even though “private militia” can exist only in, and require protection by, “a free State”).
If so, those readers simply need to wait until events compel imagination to give way to reality—until the governmental machinery which has nothing to do with “regulating” “well regulated Militia”, because “well regulated Militia” do not exist in those readers’ communities as parts of their governments, gets around to imposing “martial law” on them where they live. For that day is likely to dawn much sooner than they may imagine, because “constitutionalists” and “patriots” are recklessly squandering the little time Americans have left in which to revitalize “well regulated Militia” in the way the Militia should be “regulated”. On that day, those readers may finally appreciate the wisdom embodied in the old aphorism: “Experience keeps a hard school; but fools will learn in no other.” Unfortunately, at that point their enlightenment will have come too late.
We have the highest capita rate or gun ownership. It is surprising how low in murder rate compared to all other countries!
John Kerry Lied: The UN Wants to Take our Guns!
By Tim Brown
Ever since September 2013, the day Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, I have been bothered by the complete disingenuous concern he presented and outright lies he told to those gathered to witness the signing, and the American people. Here’s the video of the signing and his remarks.
The first thing I thought of was that this is a former senator who is signing a three inch document, which I’m sure he has never read. This is the disingenuous part of what he is doing.
Second, in discussing what the treaty is not, he declares “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes. Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans … to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution.”
I would have to ask him for the specific citation on the specific page for how he can claim these things. I’m sure he wouldn’t be able to do it.
However, in January, William F. Jasper wrote at The New American:
The UN Arms Trade Treaty was written in secret by the Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department, along with Russia, China, France and Britain. Not exactly a lineup of champions of liberty. What does it actually say?
Article 2 defines the conventional arms covered, which include battle tanks, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles — and “small arms and light weapons.”
Article 3 of the treaty places UN prohibitions on “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2.”
Article 4 puts all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.
Several places in the treaty text, including Article 5, require all countries to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” Moreover, it declares, “Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”
Article 5, Section 4 says each State Party “shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.” Which means our federal government will provide the guns and ammo registration list to the UN, which will provide it to Russia, China, Cuba — any and every State Party that wants it.
Do you get that? There’s a national control list. We might reference it as a national gun registration list. This will not only be provided to the federal government, something they have been given no authority over, but will also be provided to our enemies abroad, including the United Nations (Yes, friends, I do not consider the UN to be the friend of the United States).
Kerry has insisted that this treaty is about “keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors.”
“This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” Kerry added. “This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong. And this is about promoting international peace and global security.”
Ask yourself this question, “Do you believe John Kerry?” Furthermore, do you believe Barack Obama after all his lies? How about Hillary Clinton?
If you are among those who want to support the Obama administration at every turn, I ask you, if this is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors, why has the Obama administration funneled money and weapons to our enemies abroad? Let me ask you an even more disturbing question, in the Obama administration, who is considered terrorists? Who are the rogue actors? Any answers will have to deal with the documentation that this administration has put out and the results are that the terrorists are patriotic Americans, which can only mean one thing: They are after your guns.
Finally, don’t forget that the push is on for microstamping of ammunition (recall Article 3 above). Despite their claims, they are looking to control the flow of ammunition.
For more on what this has looked like in history, I highly recommend Stephen P. Halbrook’s excellent work Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State.”
This Terrible Anti-Gun Treaty Goes Into Effect Christmas Eve
Today, on Christmas Eve, the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty takes effect, giving Americans a lump of coal in their stockings this holiday season.
The ATT is a bad idea that keeps getting worse. In theory, it’s about stopping the sale of guns to terrorists and mass murderers. But in practice, it’s about preventing Israel from defending itself, allowing left-wing activists to dictate U.S. foreign policy and giving anti-gun advocates a leg up.
The treaty takes effect 90 days after it’s ratified by 50 nations. That happened on Sept. 25, so the ATT enters into force on Christmas Eve. That’s not likely to be a coincidence: Treaty advocates pretend the ATT is a present of peace to the world, so the timing suits their propaganda perfectly
The administration made a serious mistake when it signed the ATT in 2013, and since then, it’s been heavily criticized in the Senate, led by Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and in the House, where Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., has taken the lead. The administration has argued the treaty is nothing more than a restatement of the existing U.S. system of export controls and that it’s irrelevant to firearms ownership in the U.S.
If only. The U.S. firearms market is international, and the treaty certainly can affect U.S. imports. Moreover, the campaign for it was led by organizations and individuals with a long record of hostility to private firearms ownership. And the UN has weighed in by trying to link the agreement to other initiatives that are explicitly designed to restrict firearms ownership.
The claim that the ATT has no implications for U.S. arms exports also is wrong. If we followed the terms of the treaty, we wouldn’t be able to waive our human rights screening requirements to arm rebels in Syria. And in fact, the treaty advocates are already criticizing the administration and Congress for doing exactly that by arguing that the U.S. is violating the ATT.
The long run game of the treaty advocates is simple: Claim the ATT is international law and that it therefore binds the U.S., even if the Senate never ratifies the treaty. They want to sneak the treaty into the U.S. through the back door, because the Senate has nailed the front door shut.
But the activists are wrong: The ATT will have no legal effect on the U.S. after Dec. 24. And if Congress continues to show leadership, the U.S. can resist the creation of treaty precedents and procedures that would restrict our sovereignty.
At bottom, the ATT is a promise of hope and change, a pile of tightly wrapped Christmas presents under the tree. But as we’ve learned over the past six years, those promises aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. And until you actually unwrap your presents, you don’t know what you’re getting for Christmas.
Now Hiring! UN Gun Grabbers
Today, the gun control establishment told us they’re worried about state bills that nullify federal gun control.
This morning, the Brady Center filed suit against Kansas to block the new 2nd Amendment Protection Act – a bill that we worked tirelessly to support until it was signed into law last year.
This tells us that the gun control establishment is getting concerned about what will happen with more states passing such bills. If they weren’t worried about our nullification efforts, they wouldn’t do a thing about them.
To us, this is a BIG green light to push harder than ever to protect the 2nd Amendment through state level resistance to federal gun control measures. And we intend to do so.
In the next 1-2 months, we’ll be launching a ramped-up campaign to get our 2nd Amendment Preservation Act introduced and passed in more and more states around the country in 2015 – and with your help, we will make that happen!
If you want to help financially, please chip in as much as you can. And if you want to volunteer to take part in this effort, send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org – we’ll get in touch with you in the coming weeks so you can get involved.
Source: Tenth Amendment Center https://rally.org/activities/bXSGLoFLjg6
UN to Set Up a U.S.-based Disarmament Specialist
It’s no secret that President Obama and the would-be global governors at the United Nations are anxious to disarm the American people. Now they’re looking to hire some help in getting it done.
From the UN’s Program of Action and Arms Trade Treaty, to his own executive orders, Obama is pursuing every available avenue toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment and the God-given right to keep and bear arms that it protects.
Over the next few weeks, though, the UN is looking to add personnel to its gun grabbing gestapo. In a job advertisement open until July 26, the UN is looking for a “Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer.”
What will this bureaucrat’s bailiwick be? Here’s a summary of the job description as posted by the UN:
Act as a Focal Point for DDR [Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration] components for 2-3 missions, responsible for planning, support to implementation and evaluation;
Advise, develop and review (as appropriate) initial DDR functional strategy and concept of operations for further development into a full program by the DDR component and the National DDR Commission;
Provide Headquarters support in planning the civilian and military logistics support for DDR;
Continually review DDR program strategy and implementation through relevant documents, reports and code cables;
Conduct field missions to assess implementation of established DDR programs;
Identify potential problems and issues to be addressed and suggest remedies to DDR units in the field; and
Liaise with others (UN, regional organizations [sic] and Member States) providing DDR training.
As if the list of tasks assigned to the disarmament specialist isn’t enough to fire up patriots who own firearms and refuse to have them seized by the UN or the Obama administration, the UN wants to base this office in New York City!
It is more than a little incompatible that a country that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that has such disdain and disregard for those rights that it is opening a disarmament office in that country.
Lest anyone think that there’s nothing to fear from this agent of disarmament, consider the definitions of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration provided by the UN on an information page linked to the job opening announcement:
Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.
Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and groups, including a phase of “reinsertion” which provides short-term assistance to ex-combatants.
Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income. It is a political, social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level.
The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.
Notably, the UN will require the DDR specialist to help disarm ex-combatants. Is this mission not an eery echo of recent efforts in the United States to keep veterans from owning firearms? Perhaps, unbeknownst to the American people, President Obama has already been using his infamous “pen” and “phone” to carry out the disarmament of veterans in furtherance of some higher-level UN strategy.
Could it be also that the rapid militarization of local law enforcement in the United States could be another tactic in the piecemeal, surreptitious deployment of “troops” capable of carrying out a forcible forfeiture of firearms?
As reported by the National Rifle Association’s Ginny Simone, there are those on the inside who have raised the warning voice.
Simone reports that in 2012, Ambassador Faith Whittlesey, a U.S. delegate to the UN Small Arms Conference, revealed that the UN’s ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans in the name of global peace and an end to armed violence.
“In New York, right here on our own shores, we’ve got a Trojan horse. They won’t accept U.S. firearms policy,” Whittlesey said. “They want to take the decision away from the U.S. electorate and undermine our Constitution.”
Regardless of the reason, Americans must adamantly refuse to allow the UN to establish an office of disarmament on our own shores. We must demonstrate our ancestors’ zeal for liberty, particularly regarding the fundamental right to oppose tyranny by force of arms.
If we do not, we may soon be subject to the full expression of the authority of the U.S.-based DDR specialist and be left defenseless in the fight against absolutism.
The Militia Myth: Understanding the Language of the 2nd Amendment
by John Engle June 5, 2014
The issues surrounding the right to bear arms are many and varied. Most often the debate centers around the lethality of modern firearms, especially “assault weapons” that can fire rapidly with large magazines. Yet one element of the debate frequently referenced obliquely in the mainstream media concerns the actual intent and function of the Second Amendment. Some progressive groups have been endeavoring to turn the originalist position against itself, so to speak. Their arguments are often baffling to those unprepared for them, but they are easily beaten with a little preparation.
The first argument often rolled out by gun-grabbers is a textual one, claiming that the Second Amendment itself does not actually defend individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, but instead outlines the need for an armed “well-regulated militia.” According to progressives, that first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” indicates that the purpose of the amendment is to establish and maintain a regulated militia whose purpose is to defend the state. On this interpretation, the amendment does not secure the right of individuals to own weapons as individuals.
There are two counters to this claim that demonstrate how facile it is. The first argument is simply a matter of understanding the grammar of the actual text of the Second Amendment. The first phrase is under proper grammar, and as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, a prefatory phrase. It is not a statement of the sole purpose of the right to bear arms, but is an understanding of the way in which the right would be used in the defense of the state.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment clearly identifies right as belonging to ‘the people.’ This identification clearly shows to whom the right belongs. As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in one of his most magisterial opinions:
“Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.”
If “the people” does not apply to all the individual citizens in the Second Amendment, then how can it do so for those other amendments? The meaning of the statement is clear, despite the obfuscation of progressive activism.
The second counterargument relies on examining what the framers of the Constitution meant. Fortunately for supporters of the right to bear arms, and unfortunately for their opponents, many of the people who wrote the Constitution wrote elsewhere about its meaning. Many of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Samuel Adams all explicitly endorsed individual ownership of arms. Even Alexander Hamilton, the founder most in favor of big government and a standing army, agreed that private citizens ought to be allowed to own weapons.
The founders were also clear about what they meant by the term militia. Richard Henry Lee stated it very succinctly: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms.” In other words, whether a militia is the proper holder of arms or the people is irrelevant, because they are one and the same. Only by ignoring the words of the founders, as well as the basic rules of grammar, can the progressives’ case even appear valid. Once the ignorance is cured, their case crumbles to dust.
Some progressives pursue a different tack and argue that the defensive purpose of the Second Amendment has been made obsolete by the establishment of a standing army. There are two critical problems with this line of reasoning. First, the presence of standing army was exactly the sort of overbearing and asymmetric power the Second Amendment was meant to be a defense against, so it seems to make little sense that the right would somehow be invalidated by this.
Second, Americans are now more than ever subject to the possibility of being “called up” to military service. Conscription was not even considered by the founders as a means of raising troops. Today most citizens are required to be registered in the Selective Service system. The pressures of over-mighty government and the possibility of being drafted serve as joint forces in favor of the maintenance of the Second Amendment rights as they are now understood.
Another bizarre argument wheeled out in recent years that has a similar line of reasoning is the claim that the right is moot with regard to overthrowing domestic tyrants or oppressors because the federal government is so asymmetrically powerful that any such resistance would be quickly dealt with. This argument is laughable for two reasons. First, it seems to suggest that the force discrepancy is so asymmetric that people ought to just give up the weapons they have. Yet that could only further diminish the capacity of citizens to defend themselves, both against criminals and a potentially aggressive government.
Second, the idea that asymmetries of power render a group militarily helpless is little better than a joke. The lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan ought to be enough to put to rest the idea that a smaller, less well-armed force cannot put up a lasting resistance to a mighty military.
In the end, it is important to realize that the Second Amendment is just as relevant today as it ever was. Human nature has hardly changed in 200 years, and the rights we possess are no less inalienable or self-evident. Anyone trying to erode our constitutionally-enshrined rights should be immediately held suspect. If we do not protect our own rights, who will?
Gun Control for Dummies – It’s Common Sense
Disarming the Warriors
Arizona Senators Advance Nullification of Federal Gun Laws
In 2013, Arizona was named America’s #1 State for Gun Owners, by Guns and Ammo Magazine.
This week, Arizona legislators aimed to improve on that status, advancing nullification of federal gun laws and stopping state enforcement of them. Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward, along with eight co-sponsors, introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act in the Grand Canyon State.
According to the bill, SB1294, all federal regulations which violate the Second Amendment would be recognized as “invalid and void in this state” (that would be any federal gun law).
The legislation also prohibits the state from enforcing “any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.”
Click here to read entire article…
UN Arms Trade Treaty: Every U.S. Senator Must Be Held Accountable
Back Door Gun Control Moves Forward
By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton 10-29-2013
There are numerous alarming reasons why the US government and the military have been buying up all the ammo. Here’s one of them. Obama and the EPA just shut down the last lead smelting plant in the US. They raised the EPA regulations by 10 fold and it would have cost the plant $100 million to comply. You can own all the guns you want, but if you can’t get ammo, you are out of luck.
Click here to read article…
Interpol Chief: Fight Terrorism With Armed Citizens
In September, terrorists waged a days-long attack on a Kenyan mall, killing dozens. This week, Ronald Noble, secretary general of the international policing agency Interpol, discussed the problem of “soft targets,” using the mall as an example. “Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” he said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”
Click here to read article…
CORKER WARNS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGAINST ANY ACTION TO IMPLEMENT U.N. ARMS TRADE TREATY WITHOUT SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT
WASHINGTON – Asserting the Senate’s constitutional role on treaties, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, in a letter today warned the Obama administration against taking any action to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty without Senate advice and consent.
Click here to read article…
MOLON LABE Trailer
Click here for more information on above topic…