Speaking of Gun Control Laws Mr. President, how about Fast and Furious?

ATF gunwalking scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weapons recovered by Mexican military in Naco, Sonora, Mexico on November 20, 2009. They include weapons bought two weeks earlier by Operation Fast and Furious suspect Uriel Patino, who would buy 723 guns during the operation.[1]

“Gun walking”, or “letting guns walk”, was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). They ran a series of “gunwalking” sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders.”[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7]

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[6][8][9] The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers.[10][11][12][13][14] During Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest “gunwalking” probe, the ATF monitored the sale of about 2,000[1]:203[15] firearms, of which only 710 were recovered as of February 2012.[1]:203 A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.[6]

Guns tracked by the ATF have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the Mexico–United States border, and the scene of the death of at least one U.S. federal agent, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The “gunwalking” operations became public in the aftermath of Terry’s murder.[2] Dissenting ATF agents came forward to Congress in response.[16][17] According to Humberto Benítez Treviño, former Mexican Attorney General and chair of the justice committee in the Chamber of Deputies, related firearms have been found at numerous crime scenes in Mexico where at least 150 Mexican civilians were maimed and killed.[18] As investigations have continued, the operations have become increasingly controversial in both countries, and diplomatic relations have been damaged as a result.[2]

As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in criminal contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012.[19][20] Earlier that month, President Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency over the same documents.[21][22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

ANY QUESTIONS?

Related articles

• ‘Fast and Furious’ called false flag against gun dealers (wnd.com)
• ATF Creating ‘Massive’ Database of Personal Info: ‘Assets, Relatives, Associates and More’ (sago.com)
• ATF To Spy On Gun Owners Via “Massive” Database (usahitman.com)
• JUST PERFECT: ATF seeks ‘massive’ database to track U.S. citizens, but not the weapons it sent to Mexico’s drug cartels (directorblue.blogspot.com)
• ATF Seeks ‘Massive’ Online Database To Log Personal Information, Connections (albanytribune.com)
• Too Fast, Too Furious (freebeacon.com)
• Stonewalling on ‘Fast and Furious’ challenged (wnd.com)
• 20,000 U.S. M-16s Stolen From Unguarded Warehouse (intellihub.com)
• 20,000 U.S. M-16s STOLEN From Unguarded Warehouse (secretsofthefed.com)

 

In a Truly Free Country there would be no Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Freedom is the Power or Right to Act, Speak, or Think as one wants without Hindrance or Restraint, and the Absence of a Despotic Government

Here are the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

STAND YOUR GROUND AMERICA

ANY QUESTIONS?

If the Second Amendment comes Tumbling Down?

Something to think about should we ever see another Election

 

United Nations moves ahead with Global Gun Control Treaty

UNITED NATIONS –  Supporters of a U.N. treaty designed to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade were optimistic that a final draft circulated a day before Thursday’s deadline will reach consensus.

Negotiators reconvened last week in a final attempt to reach a deal on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers.

U.N. diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations have been private, said Wednesday the United States was virtually certain to go along with the latest text.

Hopes of reaching agreement on what would be a landmark treaty were dashed last July when the U.S. said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord — a move quickly backed by Russia and China. In December, the U.N. General Assembly decided to hold a final conference and set Thursday as the deadline for reaching agreement.

“We need a treaty,” China’s U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong told The Associated Press. “We hope for consensus.”

Questions remain on whether Iran, Egypt, India and several other countries that had serious concerns about the text would go along with the draft, which requires agreement of all 193 U.N. member states for adoption.

There has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

“It’s important for each and every country in the world that we have a regulation of the international arms trade,” Germany’s U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig told the AP. “There are still some divergencies of views, but I trust we can overcome them.”

The draft treaty does not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

The final draft makes this human rights provision even stronger, adding that the export of conventional arms should be prohibited if they could be used in the commission of attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

The National Rifle Association has portrayed the draft treaty as a threat to gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and has lobbied to defeat the proposal at the U.N.

The NRA last week praised the Senate’s passage of an amendment to the Democratic budget proposal that would prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty.

The measure, introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., passed on a 53-46 vote.

“Thanks to the efforts of Senator Inhofe, we are one step closer to ensuring the U.N. will not trample on the freedoms our founding fathers guaranteed to us,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement released following the vote.

Ammunition has been a key issue, with some countries pressing for the same controls on ammunition sales as arms, but the U.S. and others opposed such tough restrictions. The draft calls for each country that ratifies the treaty to establish regulations for the export of ammunition “fired, launched or delivered” by the weapons covered by the convention.

The Control Arms coalition, which represents about 100 organizations worldwide campaigning for a strong treaty, and diplomats from countries that support them, said this wouldn’t cover hand grenades and mines.

India and other countries had insisted that the treaty have an opt-out for government arms transfers under defense cooperation agreements. The new text appears to keep that loophole, stating that implementation of the treaty “shall not prejudice obligations” under defense cooperation agreements by countries that ratify the treaty.

“Making this treaty was like making a sausage: Everyone has added an ingredient,” said Ted Bromund, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“Unfortunately, that has produced a document that leans much too far towards satisfying the concerns of the Arab Group and Mexico. The former view it as a rebellion prevention plan, while the latter wants a text that edges towards its view that the domestic firearms market in the U.S. should be subject to treaty regulation,” he said.

But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the independent Washington-based Arms Control Association, said, “The emerging treaty represents an important first step in dealing with the unregulated and illicit global trade in conventional weapons and ammunition, which fuels wars and human rights abuses worldwide.”

He said the text could have been stronger and more comprehensive, but it can still make an important difference.

“The new treaty says to every United Nations member that you cannot simply ‘export and forget,’” Kimball said.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime. The final draft would allow countries to determine whether the weapons transfer would contribute to or undermine peace and security.

Anna Macdonald, Oxfam’s head of arms control, said the scope of the weapons covered in the latest draft is still too narrow.

“We need a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, not just some of them,” she said. “We need a treaty that will make a difference to the lives of the people living in Congo, Mali, Syria and elsewhere who suffer each day from the impacts of armed violence.”

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/28/optimism-in-un-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-is-said-to-go-along-with-deal/#ixzz2OpPCBODq

ANY QUESTIONS?

Related articles

• Optimism in UN over 1st global arms trade treaty (sfgate.com)
• Optimism in UN on global arms trade treaty (heraldonline.com)
• Optimism in UN on global arms trade treaty (kansascity.com)
• Optimism in UN over 1st global arms trade treaty (cnsnews.com)
• Nations close to deal on UN arms trade treaty -envoys (worldbulletin.net)
• U.N. In Final Days Of Creating Global Gun Control Treaty In Manhattan‏ – OpEd (eurasiareview.com)
• Optimism in U.N. Over 1st Global Arms Trade Treaty (world.time.com)

 

OBAMACARE BACKFIRE – It Protects Second Amendment Gun Rights!

Hat tip to Hot Air.com for this report

Subject: Good News For Gun Owners

Looks like Obama should have read the “Obamacare” law before he signed it, OR he was so eager to get “Obamacare” that he didn’t care about the “gun owners” clause that was in it!

So, Obama was either stupid for not reading the bill OR knew the clause was necessary to get his “Obamacare” passed, so that his ego could soar!

Wednesday, it was discovered that hidden deep within the massive 2800-page bill called Obamacare, there is a Senate Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the
throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

According to that amendment, the government cannot collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.” This means that the government CANNOT mandate firearm registration. No registration, no confiscation. Poor ol’ Joe Biden, he spent the last couple of weeks focusing on making a law requiring registration. Good thing is though, the amendment also states that not
even an executive order can override the amendment

CNN is now referring to it as “a gift to the nation’s powerful gun lobby.”And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that’s exactly right. He says he personally added the provision in order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010.

(You can find this information in Section 2716 of the Obamacare Law)

It looks like Harry Reid actually helped out firearm owners without even realizing it. Thanks Harry!!

GO to:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/09/video-secret-gun-rights-provision-in-obamacare/

ANY QUESTIONS?

Columbine Survivor writes an Open Letter to President Obama

Columbine survivor Evan Todd released an open letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.

The letter, which speaks directly to the president, covers a number of key facets in the gun control debate. On universal background checks, Todd expresses his fears that “universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation.”
It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher,” he writes. “The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

“Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?,” he asks the president in the text.

“Whose side are you on?”

Read Todd’s open letter to Obama…

Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

Universal Background Checks

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

10-Round Limit for Magazines

Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

Lastly, when did the government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.

Selling to Criminals

Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.

Criminals and murderers will always find a way.

Critical Examination

Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.

Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?

You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:

First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.

Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.

This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.

Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.

Respectfully,

Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

Related articles

• Columbine Student Survivor to Obama: “Whose Side Are You On?” (grumpyelder.com)

 

They Aim to take your Guns America

Hat tip to The Blaze for this report

Missouri Dems Introduce Alarming Gun Confiscation Bill Giving Law-Abiding Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Certain Firearms or Become Felons

Democrats in Missouri introduced startling anti-gun legislation that would require gun owners to hand over their legally purchased so-called “assault weapons”  to “the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction” within 90 days.

Under the proposed bill, “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.”

Here are some additional provisions found in the gun control bill:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

4. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

So essentially the law would turn a law-abiding gun owner today, into a felon tomorrow.

State Reps. Rory Ellinger (D-86) and Jill Schupp (D-88) reportedly introduced the anti-gun legislation, House Bill 545, this week.

Gun confiscation is being talked about more and more by lawmakers as a means to get so-called “assault weapons,” which are really semi-automatic rifles, off the streets. Democrats in California last week also proposed legislation that called for the potential confiscation of the state’s 166,000 legally purchased semi-automatic rifles.

California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) defended the massive gun control package, saying “we can save lives.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/14/missouri-dems-introduce-alarming-gun-confiscation-bill-giving-law-abiding-gun-owners-90-days-to-turn-in-certain-firearms-or-become-felons/

Breaking: MN Democrats Introduce Law to Confiscate Guns… Give Gun Owners 6 Months to Turn in Weapons

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, February 14, 2013

Breaking: MN Democrats Introduce Law to Confiscate Guns… Using Same Language as MO Democrats

(thegatewaypundit.com)

Don’t Let this Happen to America

ANY QUESTIONS?

Related articles

• Be Vigilant America: They want your Guns! (ireporters.wordpress.com)
• IT BEGINS! Missouri Dems Introduce Alarming Gun Confiscation Bill (twighlightslastgleaming.wordpress.com)
• Breaking: MN Democrats Introduce Law to Confiscate Guns… Using Same Language as MO Democrats (thegatewaypundit.com)
• TYRANNY ALERT: Debunking Obama’s “We don’t want to take away your guns” myth; Missouri and Minnesota Progressives introduce legislation to do just that. (pumabydesign001.com)

 

Defeating Barack Obama’s Assault on American Gun Owning Patriots

It’s quite simple Mr. President

We the people are

N  E  V  E  R

( let me repeat )

N    E    V    E    R

Going to give up Our Guns nor Our Second Amendment Rights!

Your Sir might be better served going after the Left Wing Loons who are committing these violent acts upon our Citizenry.

We have seen the Violent Gun Crime Stats in Cities where they have the most aggressive Gun Control Laws, ie Chicago (your home town) and Washington D.C. (your vacation rental). 

Both of these cities have the Highest Violent Gun Crimes rates in the Country and you have lived in both of them!

However, since you seem so bent on disarming your law abiding Citizens and you are constantly telling US…

(((“ GUNS DON’T KEEP YOU SAFE “)))

Why not Lead by Example and Disarm your Secret Service Protection? 

That way, together, we can ALL live in the Safe Utopia you have created here in America with your Class Warfare Agenda

Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and Strict Gun Control Laws in New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C. have  never worked Mr. President and you know that so what is your “Real Agenda” for Controlling Guns in America ?

Mr. President, shouldn’t we and our Children enjoy the same protections  you enjoy?

THE UNTIED STATES CONSTITUTION: Frustrating Liberals since 1788

Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

March 4th 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

——————————————————————————–

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

——————————————————————————–

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Gutting the 2nd Amendment: Were not Fools Mr. President

The discussion of target shooting, hunting, and “sporting purposes” is moot. There is no debate about taking away someone’s single shot trap gun or little double barrel dove gun. Anyone can look at the U.K., where firearms are not an acceptable form of self defense. Yet, they are allowed to break pieces of clay and kill released pheasants despite the lack of a 2nd Amendment. Some of the most oppressive regimes of the world grant scatter-gun privileges.

It is a foolish discussion, as breaking pieces of clay needs no protection. It is the same with the 1st Amendment, for non-controversial speech needs no protection. It is only the controversial, perhaps unsavory, perhaps troubling to some type of speech that needs protection. You may be disgusted with flag-burning, but that is protected free speech.

 The way rights are constrained and taken away is not hard to figure out; history shows exactly how it happens over and over again. A classic method is to covert a Right to a Privilege. Once that is accomplished, it opens up the hoary “what do you NEED it for” dialogue. If compelled to show a need, it is no longer a Right. The correct answer to “What Do You Need it For?” is called nobody’s business.

 Gutting the 2nd Amendment takes time, the most crazed anti-gunners know this. Unable to directly void the 2nd Amendment, they are clever enough to chip away at it, gobble up the perimeters, and divide the U.S. gun-owner. Knowing that Americans are a selfish lot and largely care only about the rights that they choose to personally exercise, it is throw bones and false assurances to hunters and target shooters so they are sheeped into inaction, feeling good that their little part of the firearm world is not imperiled.

 Now, the standard fare is to relabel, mislabel, and recast that which they wish to ban. Self-loading rifles are now “assault weapons” as are some pistols, weapons of war, weapons of mass destruction, the scourge of Mankind. Sheep a mindless population into believing repeating rifles and pistols are the same as Armed Predator Drones, landmines, booby traps, and rocket-propelled grenades and you are well on your way.

 Also, soft pedal and dumb down the actual facts: gun crime has declined in the United States by over 50% in the last twenty years. Gun crime declines year after year, according to the FBI, but the facts don’t mess with the emotional “we have to do something” shrill mantra of the uninformed. Standard technique: over-report gun crime, sensationalize it, don’t mention that gun control was a massive failure in Canada and that Mexico has some of the most radical gun laws in the world– but extremely high crime. Also, never report that over 2,000,000 times every year, crimes are thwarted by U.S. private citizens with guns. That needs to be kept hush-hush, for it doesn’t not work with the gun-grabster dialogue.

 Beyond that, lie. Lie like crazy, lie on Capitol Hill. Sit there with a straight face and tell people that 40% of the nasty crime guns come from gun shows. Lie, lie, lie. Don’t let the sheep of America ever know that according to the FBI data from 1997, 2% of the firearms acquired by Federal inmates came from gun shows.

 We know that Federal inmates, those convicted of crime, get 2% of their firearms from gun shows. 2%, yet recently in the Senate hearings 40% was stated as fact. It is a factual lie, but that doesn’t matter . . . for the gunshow has been re-branded as a “loophole” and if you cry “loophole” loud and long enough, some people will actually start to believe it. Overstating gun shows as a source of firearms for criminals by TWENTY TIMES is no accounting error: it is an amazingly bold, easily discernible lie.

 One can only hope that the American public will grow weary of being lied to and treated like sea-slug stupid sheep, not constituents. We should vote for candidates to actually protect rights, not steal them away.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Related articles

• The Second Amendment is my Gun Permit! (twighlightslastgleaming.wordpress.com)