The Great Deception -> * 2nd Amendment - Right To Bear Arms " Shall Not

* 2nd Amendment - Right To Bear Arms " Shall Not, Be Infringed " IS NOT hard to understand

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

jofortruth

Posted: Nov 10 2008, 04:02 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

QUOTE

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.

Coming for our Firearms - Proof:
http://www.libertygunrights.com/NewVol9_3.pdf

Public Law 87-297:
http://www.libertygunrights.com/PublicLaw87-297.html

user posted image

If you give up your guns, the NWO Globalists will own you! Guns are the last thing on their list to take from a free people! Let them do it, and you are no longer free!

The Founders warned us about the potential of a rogue government! Sadly, we are now faced with such!

When society breaks down (which the globalists are currently manufacturing), criminals will abound and police will not be there for you! This is another reason why you must never give up your guns under any circumstances!

Think about it! It's either freedom or tyranny! Which do you want?

Please Watch this Video: Iron Mountain
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...hp?showtopic=14

QUOTE

The UN is a Communist, Illuminist, Masonic World Dictatorship with no freedoms, hence they must get our guns to eliminate our free State/Nation guaranteed in our Constitution.

Iron Mountain is a report on how to circumvent the Constitution of the USA.

Freedom From War - Dept of State Publication 7277 - Sept 1961
http://www.mikenew.com/pub7277.html

This has already been done to much of the world. They saved America for last because we're the only one who has a 2nd AMENDMENT and the Right to Bear Arms and we would be much harder to disarm. Also they've been using our taxpayer money to plunder and pillage the entire world.

A FLYER: 2nd Amendment, Gun Control:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?6sbg1apkfkkw8k0

A MUST SEE! THE SMUCKS THREATENING YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...showtopic=10847

MORE ON THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...0#entry22010614

jofortruth

Posted: Nov 10 2008, 04:22 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Americas Never Give up Your Guns - Pravda Russian
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnist...ericans_guns-0/

QUOTE

28.12.2012

By Stanislav Mishin

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

jofortruth	Posted: Dec 15 2008, 01:12 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	A MUST READ! "And then they took the guns" http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...0#entry22009038 ANOTHER WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS! NOT SURE HOW MANY IT WILL TAKE TO WAKE YOU THE HELL UP! BUT TIME IS SHORT!

jofortruth

Posted: Jan 25 2009, 10:30 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Gun Free Zones Act is responsible for deaths, they made these places a target for criminals:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=6050

QUOTE

See pg CRS-4 & 5 "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990"

Congress made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. In United States v. Lopez, the Court held that because the act neither regulated a commercial activity nor contained a requirement that the possession was connected to interstate commerce, the act exceeded the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause.... the decision would appear to suggest new limits to Congress's legislative authority.

jofortruth

Posted: Jan 28 2009, 11:20 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Pro-gun Group Applauds Sen. Barrasso for Opposing AG Nominee
http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/inde...1b-2f7fc2356699

QUOTE

Gun Owners of America

January 26, 2009

Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members, applauds Senator John Barrasso�s decision to vote against Eric Holder for U.S. Attorney General.

�Eric Holder has a long history of anti-Second Amendment activism, going back to the time when he was the go-to guy for gun control in the Clinton administration,� said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America.

�As Sen. Barrasso points out, Holder�s record includes his support of waiting periods for gun purchases, handgun rationing, gun bans, gun owner registration and licensing, and much more.

�Perhaps most egregiously, in 2008, Mr. Holder signed on to a brief before the Supreme Court that argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual�s right to own a firearm. This is not the type of person who should be confirmed to a position that carries the responsibility of enforcing most of the gun control laws in this country,� Mr. Pratt said.

In a letter published throughout the state over the weekend, Sen. Barrasso announced his concerns over the Holder nomination:

�Given Holder's career of attacks on the Second Amendment, his nomination continues to be of great concern to me. I am not convinced his philosophy on the Second Amendment is acceptable to the people of Wyoming and gun owners across the United States.

�Agendas and intentions can change quickly. Our nation's highest law enforcement officer must be committed to protecting and defending our individual rights to keep and bear arms. I intend to vote no on the nomination of Eric Holder,� Sen. Barrasso said.

jofortruth

Posted: Jan 28 2009, 11:22 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Protecting the 2nd Amendment - Why I will Vote No on Attorney General Nomination
http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/inde...n_id=&Issue_id=

QUOTE

January 26, 2009

In Wyoming, we don�t ask for much from Washington. We do ask that Washington limit its intrusion on our land, water and especially our Second Amendment rights. That�s not a lot to ask in the grand scheme of Washington but it is critically important to the constituents who sent me to fight for them.

President Obama has nominated Eric Holder to serve as the United States Attorney General. During the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder served as Janet Reno�s Deputy Attorney General from 1997-2001. Deputy Attorney General Holder was on record supporting a long list of proposals to limit the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. He supported a 3-day waiting period for handgun purchases, one-gun-a-month purchasing limits, licensing and registering of all gun owners, mandatory so-called smart gun technology and regulating gun shows out of existence.

During the last years of the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder was involved in the Department of Justice�s attempt to use heavy handed lawsuit threats against firearms manufacturers. Washington moved forward with their suits against gun manufacturers that did not comply with their so called safety standards. Smith & Wesson was the only company that agreed to the demands. As a result, gun owners throughout the country boycotted Smith & Wesson for giving in to Washington and the gun control lobby.
In an October 25, 2001 Washington Post editorial titled �Keeping Guns Away from Terrorists,� Holder argued that every firearm transaction should be regulated by Washington. His proposal would have required a son that inherited his father�s shotgun to conduct a background check if the son decided to put it on the market. Mr. Holder�s proposal was a backdoor attempt to regulate and shut down lawful gun shows by linking private gun sales to future terrorist attacks.

In January 2008, Eric Holder joined Janet Reno in a brief to the Supreme Court saying that Second Amendment rights do not apply to individual citizens. That brief argued that the Second Amendment �does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia.� The Supreme Court ruled otherwise by affirming the individual right to possess and bear arms.
As Wyoming�s United States Senator, I take very seriously the responsibility to protect and defend our right to keep and bear arms. President Obama has every right to nominate Eric Holder to be Attorney General. I have the duty to closely review the nominee�s qualifications and philosophy on issues that are important to all Americans.

During Mr. Holder�s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing he stated that gun control is not on this administration�s agenda. He also said that he still supports regulating private gun sales, banning ammunition and semi-automatic assault weapons. Given Mr. Holder�s career of attacks on the Second Amendment, his nomination continues to be of great concern to me. I am not convinced his philosophy on the Second Amendment is acceptable to the people of Wyoming and gun owners across the United States.

Agendas and intentions can change quickly. Our nation�s highest law enforcement officer must be committed to protecting and defending our individual rights to keep and bear arms. I intend to vote no on the nomination of Eric Holder.

jofortruth

Posted: Mar 1 2009, 02:47 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

What Good Can a Handgun do Against an Army?
http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2...ainst-army.html

QUOTE

A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:

"If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)"

If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership told me once:

"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." - Aaron Zelman, JPFO

Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question.

Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

The theory and practice of it was this:

First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half- hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)

They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.

Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas- present fashion out in the middle of the desert.

"A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money." --Everett Dirksen

Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million-- that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes.

Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its relatives' backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).

But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."

The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty", as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him.

The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep.

Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"-- a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.

Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable wooly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged.

There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not-- for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters." Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content to watch the numbers of these "armed sheep" diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below a level that wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our "Animal Farm," without apology to George Orwell.

Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause to fight for, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it. The dirty little secret of today's ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible ("wedge issues" the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited. Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie "A Bug's Life". Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected from the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday.

"A Bug's Life", a childrens' movie of all things, is just such a place.

The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated "Magnificent Seven", you're right.)

The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a bug cantina down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named "Hopper" (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified), that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. "Would you like a seed?" he quietly asks one. "Sure," answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. "Would you like one?" Hopper asks the other. "Yeah," says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them.

"So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?" Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. "I'll show you why!" he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!"

I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?"

"If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them, "our game is finished. We're finished."

Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants.

Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without.

They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance-- not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.

Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing.

It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government.

It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness"; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God.

So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything." The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, but only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance.

A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill

The Spartans at Thermopolae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered.

The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them."

The time is late. Those who once has trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better.

We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now-- five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands-- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world."

Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country.

The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans." The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War.

And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."

But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery.

If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with the help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant's army.

Posted by Transsylvania Phoenix at 9:15 AM

jofortruth	Posted: Jun 15 2009, 10:10 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	The Second Amendment Book Bomb http://www.secondamendmentbook.com/ The Founders� Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms http://www.secondamendmentbook.com/the-book/ [URL=http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=72]http://www.independent.org/publications/bo...y.asp?bookID=72[/URL

jofortruth

Posted: Jun 29 2009, 07:24 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Four Reasons Why Gun Sales Are Up
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/exclus...=exclusives_img

QUOTE

The fear on the street is palpable. Ever since the election of Barack Obama as President of these United States in November 2008, coupled with the election of a democrat party majority in both the U.S. House and Senate, concern for the United States and personal safety has ignited like a fire in dry grass. Sales of guns � black guns, rifles, shotguns and handguns (particularly 9mm) everywhere, have gone through the roof.

Manufacturers of ARs are still working to catch up and some of the major suppliers are as much as 150,000 guns behind. Not only that, ammo is in the shortest supply I have ever seen in the 43 years of my shooting life.

DO YOU NOW SEE, OBAMA? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW YOU ARE LYING TO US. WE CAN SEE IT EVERYTIME YOU TALK BEHIND YOUR TELEPROMPTER (UTTERING WORDS OF YOUR ELITE MASTERS). BUT WE MOSTLY SEE IT BECAUSE YOUR "WORDS" DO NOT MATCH "YOUR ACTIONS".

YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE MOST UNPOPULAR AND BIGGEST FAILURE IN HISTORY, IF YOU KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE TOLD BY THE ELITE BANKERS. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? A FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT FAILURE?

YOU ARE SHAMEFUL! LYING IS NOT LEADERSHIP; STANDING UP TO THE ELITE BANKERS WOULD BE LEADERSHIP. I GUESS YOU AREN'T MAN ENOUGH TO DO THAT ARE YOU????????

I THINK YOU NEED TO RETAKE YOUR OATH OF OFFICE A 3RD TIME, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT, OR TAKE IT TO HEART, THE FIRST TWO TIMES! IMO YOU WERE A FAILURE THE VERY FIRST LIE YOU UTTERED. WHAT A SHAME!

jofortruth

Posted: Jul 10 2009, 10:53 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Police Commander: �The Fear on the Street is Palpable�
http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-command...s-palpable.html

QUOTE

Scott Wagner
Via E Mail
Friday, July 10, 2009

Scott Wagner is a Police Academy Commander and Professor at Columbus State Community College in Columbus Ohio, and Commander of the 727 Counter Terror Training Unit. A 29 year law enforcement veteran, and current Deputy Sheriff, he is the Precision Marksman for the Union County Sheriff�s Office SRT Team.

The fear on the street is palpable to anyone who is paying attention. Ever since the election of Barack Obama as President of these United States in November 2008, coupled with the election of a democrat party majority in both the U.S. House and Senate, concern for the United States and personal safety has ignited like a fire in dry grass.

Sales of guns � black guns, rifles, shotguns and handguns (particularly 9mm) everywhere, have gone through the roof. AR15s have literally flown off of dealer shelves, and only now in the spring of 2009, have I seen the display samples of ARs begin to reappear on the wall of my favorite shooting emporium after the initial post election rush. Manufacturers of ARs are still working to catch up and some of the major suppliers are as much as 150,000 guns behind. Not only that, ammo is in the shortest supply I have ever seen in the 43 years of my shooting life. Have you recently tried to get 5.56mm, 9mm or even 380 ammo?

Supplies of 5.56mm and 9mm ammo are in short supply due to the black gun buying craze; .380ACP because of the rise in people getting concealed carry permits and the resurgence of interest in convenient 380 handguns like the fine Ruger LCP. In fact, in doing a review of the Ruger LCP, my gun store only had a small supply of ONE .380 round on hand, the Winchesters 95-grain SXT, which they had just gotten in. Unfortunately, I had to do a 30-round review of that pistol. There was none other to be found.

What is odd about this new fear is that it is not coming from the average citizen gun owner out there, but it is coming from what to me is an almost shocking source: street cops.

Street cops and SWAT cops that I know from various agencies � rural, suburban and metro � in my area are scared. Cops that before November 2008 never gave much thought (that I knew of anyway) to politics or more importantly to gun rights. For the most part, these are the guys that didn�t generally have any interest in shooting or gun ownership beyond keeping track of where their duty gun is, and a few of them didn�t even do that so well.

The guys I am talking about now are some of the same guys who used to not even carry off duty on a regular basis- but not anymore. They don�t scare easily, defenders of the Constitution of this State and the United States (as our oath of office reads), have been buying ARs, survival gear, and all the ammo they can lay their hands on. All of them (or I should say �us�) have been discussing and have been acquiring guns to provide a layered perimeter defense.

What are we suddenly so afraid of? Well in our discussions it seems to boil down to four areas.

First, fear of federal government intrusion into our lives. Every time I look at or listen to the news, there is something new and intrusive coming out of the Obama administration and this Congress. New tax schemes, government-run Canadian-style healthcare, a volunteer citizen defense force (whatever that is, what happened to the National Guard?) equipped with funding similar to our military, forced voluntary �service� after retirement, a lack of a southern border with hordes of illegal and criminal aliens pouring over our border, the swine flu scare as well as government forced closing of thousands of privately held Chrysler and GM dealerships, which will be the final nail in the coffin for these companies and the list goes on and on.

But these items in the news are just the tip of the iceberg. We can�t see the full impact of these actions yet, but we don�t know what was added into the thousand of pages of stimulus package bills in the dead of night yet. I predict however that when the plans contained in the stimulus packages go into effect, a lot of us are going to be surprised if not shocked by what has suddenly and sweepingly changed.

What also scares us is the second, well-founded fear that there is an assault weapons ban looming, one that would make the Clinton Ban appear like a look of disdain in comparison. I remember well the 1990s and the Clinton years: the rise of militia groups, the �black helicopter� rumors and paranoia, all of which was motivated by the Brady Law and the Assault Weapon�s ban. What if a new ban comes requiring registration or confiscation and turn-in of banned weapons as what happened in Australia?

�I foresee much civil disobedience coming down the road. Americans are citizens, and not subjects like the British, Canadians or Australians. They just don�t always obey the law blindly and not one officer or citizen that I spoke to said anything like �I hope I get to keep this gun for awhile before they are banned; They are fun to shoot, so I would hate to give it up.� It isn�t going to happen, so the cop on the street and the soldier on the base needs to think now what he will do if the orders come down. I think you all get what I am saying here.

Which leads me to the third fear, that there is a revolution coming, yes, a revolution on the scale of the original American Revolution. You can hear this topic discussed on many of the talk radio shows by even the big name hosts. The possib ility of an armed revolution against the U.S. government being discussed, albeit very gingerly and fleetingly and as something to be avoided, which it is. I never heard this mentioned in the 90s. One of my quietest, low profile officer friends brought it up the other day.

He said that at some point in the near future, he felt there is going to be an armed revolt if things keep going the way they are. Something has got to give. I was shocked. Yes, I had heard this from some of my more radical cop friends in the past, but to hear it from a guy like this was unprecedented. Now, these guys are not saying this will happen to foment revolution, preach sedition or to even participate. They just want to be ready if it happens, to at least defend their families, because number four on the fear list is general societal chaos.

Cops fear for their parents, wives, children or grandchildren more now than ever before. Most cops are encouraging their spouses and loved ones to get concealed carry permits. Not only that, but some of these same cops are buying gun mounts for their personal cars so they can carry an AR in the family ride at the ready all the time. They are also strapping on heavier forms of off-duty hardware. I have other friends that are issued ARs or subguns for tactical team use, who always have their gear with them and are planning on just commandeering these weapons for personal use in defending hearth and home.

Final Notes

This is pretty heady and maybe even dangerous stuff. Know fully that I am not advocating anything here. I am reflecting to you what I see and hear going on around me, and maybe saying things that haven�t been said in the open, until now. It is something to think about.

jofortruth	Posted: Jul 19 2009, 01:46 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Feds Declare Tennessee Gun Law Invalid http://www.prisonplanet.com/feds-declare-t...aw-invalid.html http://www.infowars.com/images/firearms-letter.png

jofortruth	Posted: Jan 21 2010, 01:29 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	VIDEO: "In Search of the Second Amendment" Documentary: http://www.tubeshine.com/code.php?v=560fdgjmt2qbc93nv8sx http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j7h-fdHoYE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxedfAy7Jvo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7aDAP5FBM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5uyY3pGpP4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUVJEaEQw3o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPL4bLWDJLY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sazDgo6IpWU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy7R5JLAzHs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyX21YJcl7c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJNWuwZGfXM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOEIvXAAmMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Je2RgjrWk

jofortruth	Posted: Mar 7 2010, 08:38 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Supreme Gun Battle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNuVMtqlDhI

jofortruth	Posted: Mar 14 2010, 12:58 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply to States http://www.infowars.com/massachusetts-supr...pply-to-states/ http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.d...11/NEWS/3110340

jofortruth

Posted: Mar 15 2010, 06:21 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

The OAS Treaty: Blueprint for Dismantling the Second Amendment
http://www.infowars.com/the-oas-treaty-blu...cond-amendment/
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/oas-treaty.htm

QUOTE

Administration support for a dangerous international treaty shows its disdain for the Constitution and America�s law-abiding gun owners.

America's 1st Freedom. August 2009
By Dave Kopel

The Obama administration�s offensive against the Second Amendment has begun.

As was predicted, the strategy uses international law to create a foundation for repressive and extreme gun control. The mechanism is an international treaty, the �Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials.��

If the� plan succeeds, police sales of confiscated firearms would be prohibited, and anyone who reloads ammunition at home would need a federal license. In addition, the treaty would create an international law requirement that almost every American firearm owner be licensed as if he were a manufacturer.
� �
Founded in 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) includes all of the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere. (Cuba�s participation has been suspended since 1962.) In 1997, President Clinton signed a gun control treaty, which had been negotiated by OAS. Subsequently, neither he nor President George W. Bush sent the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.
� � � �
The treaty is commonly known as �CIFTA,� for its Spanish acronym, Convenci�n Interamericana Contra La Fabricaci�n Y El Tr�fico Il�citos De Armas De Fuego, Municiones, Explosivos Y Otros Materiales Relacionados. The document is called a �convention� rather than a �treaty� because �convention� is a term of art for a multilateral treaty created by a multinational organization.
� � � �
At the OAS meeting in April 2009, President Obama said that he would send CIFTA to the U.S. Senate and urge ratification. The White House claimed that the convention was merely an expression of international goodwill, and that it had been negotiated with the participation of the National Rifle Association.

Both statements were false.
� � � �
In the United States, it is common for police and� sheriffs�� departments to sell confiscated firearms to federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs). The FFLs then resell the guns to lawful consumers. Of course, when any FFL sells a gun to a customer, the sale must be approved by the National Instant Check System, or its state equivalent.
� � � �
Police and sheriff sales of confiscated guns would be outlawed by CIFTA which mandates: �State Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.�
� � � � �
Another target of CIFTA is reloading. The millions of Americans who reload include competitive target shooters, hunters, trainers who want to craft milder ammunition for beginners and many other hobbyists who enjoy making things themselves and saving money. Due to the present shortage of ammunition, more and more people are taking up reloading�so many that reloading equipment manufacturers are having difficulty keeping their products in stock.
� � � �
Reloading is entirely lawful in every state, and no state requires a specific permit for those reloading ammunition. CIFTA, however, declares that �illicit manufacturing� is the �manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials� that takes place without �a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place.�
� � � �
Thus, either the federal government or all 50 state governments would have to enact legislation to impose reloading licenses, and to define unlicensed reloading as crime. According to Article IV of CIFTA, �State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.�
� � � �
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) charges $10 per year for a license to manufacture most ammunition. Also under existing law, the premises of firearms and ammunition manufacturers may be inspected without notice once per year by the BATFE, and an unlimited number of times in cases involving a criminal investigation. Thus, anyone who reloads ammunition would be taxed and subject to home inspection by the federal government.
� � � � �
Reloaders are not the only ones who would be required to have a manufacturing license. So would every company or individual that makes any part of a firearm or an accessory. In fact, so would almost every firearm owner in the nation.
� � �
CIFTA Article I requires licensing for the manufacture of �other related materials.� These are defined as �any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.�
� � � � �
That definition straightforwardly includes all spare firearm parts. It also includes accessories that are attached to firearms, such as scopes, ammunition magazines, sights, recoil pads, bipods and slings.
� � � � �
Current U.S. law requires a license to manufacture a firearm, with a �firearm� being defined as the receiver�no federal license is needed to make other parts of a firearm, such as barrels or stocks.
� � �
But CIFTA�s plain language requires federal licensing of the manufacturers and sellers of barrels, stocks, screws, springs and everything else that is used to make firearms.
� � � � �
Likewise, the manufacture of all accessories�such as scopes, sights, lasers, slings, bipods and so on�would have to be licensed.
� � � �
In the United States, the manufacture of a firearm or ammunition for one�s personal use does not require a license, since the licensing requirements apply to persons who �engage in the business� by engaging in repeated transactions for profit. (18 U.S. Code sect. 923(a).) Yet CIFTA would require licensing for everyone.
� � � � �
Many, perhaps most, firearm owners occasionally tinker with their guns. They might replace a worn-out spring, or install a better barrel. Or they might add accessories such as a scope, a laser aiming device, a recoil pad or a sling. All of these simple activities would require a government license. The CIFTA definition of �Illicit manufacturing� is �the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.� (Emphasis added.)
� � � � �
Even if putting an attachment on a firearm were not considered in itself to be �assembly,� the addition of most components necessarily requires some assembly; for example, scope rings consist of several pieces that must be assembled. Replacing one grip with another requires, at the least, the use of screws.
� � � � �
Because the definition of �manufacturing� is so broad,� nearly all gun owners would eventually be required to obtain a manufacturing license.
� � � � �
CIFTA mandates that �State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials � the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses.�
� � � � �
Yet the preamble of CIFTA says: �this Convention does not commit State Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character.�
� � � � �
Does the preamble negate the comprehensive licensing system that CIFTA demands? Not really. The exemptions are for �ownership, possession, or trade.� There is no exemption for �manufacturing.� As detailed above, �manufacturing� is defined broadly enough as to include the home manufacture of ammunition, as well as repair of one�s own firearm, or assembling an accessory for attachment to one�s firearm.
� � � � �
Notably, even if CIFTA were read so that the �does not commit� language also pertained to manufacturing, there is nothing that prevents a state party from choosing to enact manufacturing regulations.
� � � � �
The nations that have ratified CIFTA so far have not necessarily fully implemented the literal requirements of language regarding firearms and related material manufacturing. It is hardly unusual for nations to make a show of ratifying a treaty, but then do little to carry out the treaty�s requirements. However, in a culture such as the United States, with a strong commitment to the rule of law, CIFTA might have greater practical effect.
� � � � �
If ratified by the Senate, CIFTA would become the law of the land. Would the BATFE then be empowered to write regulations implementing the convention�without waiting for Congress to pass a new statute?
� � � � �
If a treaty is �self-executing,� then it is an independent source of authority for domestic regulations. By traditional views of international law, CIFTA is not self-executing, since its language anticipates that ratifying governments will have to enact future laws to comply with CIFTA.
� � � �
On the other hand, CIFTA does not explicitly declare itself to be non-self-executing. Harold Koh, who has been nominated as legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State, has challenged the doctrine of �so-called self-executing treaties� and argues that the Supreme Court decisions creating the doctrine are incorrect. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2360-61, 2383-84; see also 35 University of California at Davis Law Review, page 1111 n. 114; 35 Houston Law Review, page 666.)
� � � � �
Rather, Koh writes, legislatures �should ratify treaties with a presumption that they are self-executing.� Further, domestic courts should �construe domestic statutes consistently with international law� and �should employ international human rights norms to guide interpretation of domestic constitutional norms.� (106 Yale Law Journal, page 2658 n. 297.) As detailed in last month�s issue of America�s 1st Freedom, Koh considers stringent gun control to be a very important international human right (July 2009, p. 32).
� � � �
In Koh�s view, even when Congress has not created a statute to implement a treaty, courts should recognize a right of private plaintiffs to bring lawsuits under the treaty. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2383-84.) Thus, Koh and his allies could argue that Senate ratification of CIFTA trumps the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which outlaws abusive lawsuits against gun manufacturers and stores.
� � � �
Suppose that the Senate, when ratifying CIFTA, added specific reservations declaring that CIFTA is not self-executing, that CIFTA authorizes no additional regulations and that CIFTA does not authorize any new lawsuits. The United States executive branch, under Koh�s guidance, might ignore the reservations. When the Senate added a reservation to another treaty, Koh wrote, �Many scholars question persuasively whether the United States declaration has either domestic or international legal effect.� (111 Harvard Law Review, pages 1828-29 n. 24.)
� � � � �
Ultimately, the question of whether BATFE can promulgate regulations under CIFTA might be decided in court cases. One way for a court to resolve the issue would be to acknowledge that federal statutes already authorized regulation of manufacturing, and that CIFTA, as the latter-enacted law, simply expanded the definition of manufacturing so that the licensing requirement now applies to persons who are not engaged in the firearm business, and to manufacture or assembly of firearms attachments and spare parts.
� � � � �
It is not hard to foresee Obama-appointed federal judges upholding massive new BATFE gun control regulations, especially when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the State Department�s top legal adviser (Harold Koh) insist to the courts that the expanded federal regulations are necessary for the United States to comply with its international law obligations.
� � � � �
CIFTA does not specifically require gun registration. But once you impose manufacturing licenses, registration comes along for the ride. Existing federal regulations for manufacturers of firearms and ammunition require that manufacturers keep records of all products they produce, and these records must be available for government inspection.
� � � � �
Thus, those who reload ammunition would have to keep records of every round they made, and gun owners would have to keep a record of everything they �assembled� (e.g., putting a scope on a rifle). These records would then be open to BATFE inspection.
� � � � �
Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., (formerly a gun criminal for the terrorist group The Black Panthers), introduced H.R. 45, to set up a national licensing and registration system for handguns and for self-loading long guns. As implemented under the direction of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and State Department legal adviser Koh, CIFTA could go even further�it also covers ammunition reloading as well as long guns that are not semi-automatic.

Further, CIFTA could be used to impose national licensing, registration and taxation of gun owners without members of Congress having to cast a vote that explicitly creates such laws. Indeed, because treaties need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, yet need no approval from the House of Representatives, the House could be cut out of the law-making process altogether.

CIFTA:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=6585

jofortruth

Posted: Jul 26 2011, 12:15 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Democrats Oppose Obama UN Gun Control Treaty:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washingto...eaty_print.html

QUOTE

Twelve Democratic senators have joined 45 Republicans in a fast growing movement to halt progress on an Obama-backed United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States and slap America's gun owners with severe restrictions.

Senator Tester & Others Ltr to Obama and Hillary Warning them Re: UN Arms Trade Treaty
http://static.usnews.com/documents/whisper...ter20110726.pdf

QUOTE

"For the past few years, negotiations for the Arms Trade Treaty have progressed. As your Administration continues to engage in these negotiations, we strongly urge you to address a number of our concerns.

First and foremost, the Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sales of firearms or ammunition. Firearms possession is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and that cannot be subordinated, directly or indirectly, by an international treaty.

... We also oppose any inclusion of small arms, light weapons, ammunition or related materials that would make the Treaty overly broad and virtually unenforceable. Finally, the establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter."

See, what we have been telling you about the Obama Administration's intent to disarm the people? How did we know? We read history and what the arrogant elite say in their writings! Are you reading or just listening to the liars in the media and gov?

UN Gun Control Treaty info
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=8366
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7114391&c=POL&s=TOP
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=4278

Time to wise up people! They are not only trying to disarm responsible gun owners; they are robbing you of your freedom!

jofortruth

Posted: Jul 26 2011, 07:30 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...wtopic=9489&hl=

Unsettling Wariness in Norway, where cops are Rarely Armed:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43891047/ns/wo...e-rarely-armed/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/world/eu...r=MYWAY&ei=5065

QUOTE

�By law, Norwegian police officers must have authorization from their chief to gain access to a firearm, but they have rarely needed to ask, until recently. Violent crime has been steadily increasing, jolting a society used to leaving doors unlocked and children to play without fear.

Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,� said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, �it�s getting tougher.�

It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya Island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.

Do you see a lesson here? The US has a 2nd Amendment for a reason! A person with a gun can stop a madman with a gun! If Obama is allowed to neuter or destroy the 2nd Amendment, we could also be sitting ducks of thugs and a government running wild!

LEARN A LESSON FROM OSLO! LEARN THE 2nd Amendment, America, and defend it! It's for the good guys!

jofortruth	Posted: Oct 21 2011, 10:08 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Look what Cerberus Capital Management and their affiliate "The Freedom Group" have been doing for years now! Buying up GUNS and AMMO and the companies that make them. http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=9782 So, to them FREEDOM is DISARMAMENT? Why else would these people be buying up guns and ammo? It fits with what the NWO GLOBALISTS are doing. Under their freedom sounding groups and organizations, they are TAKING FREEDOM AWAY! Dan Quayle and John Snow, both former government officials are a part of this organization!

jofortruth

Posted: Nov 19 2011, 10:38 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

This comes from an "Off the Grid" email I received. It states how important the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) is to our freedom:
http://www.hideyourguns.com/?utm_source=OT...HYG_Nov18_Text2

QUOTE

Ever since the Second Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to bear arms, there has been a palpable tension between gun owners and the government.

After all, the right to bear arms was given, in part, so that the people could overthrow the government if it ever overstepped its bounds and egregiously infringed on the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

If you have not recently read the Bill of Rights, it is well worth your time to review it. It begins with the truths the authors believed were self-evident. For instance, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The remainder (and majority) of the document is a list of crimes and offenses committed by the British government, many of which are being committed by our government today. Among the reasons given for the necessity of "dissolving the political bands" that had tied the colonies to Britain:

1) "For imposing taxes on us without our consent."

2) "For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" and "for protecting them from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these states."

3) For obstructing trade, perverting justice, and carrying out "the works of death, desolation, and tyranny."

Without the means to defend themselves, the colonists would never have been able to cast off the tyranny of the British government. The Founding Fathers understood this. And so the right to bear arms became an integral part of American culture and a pillar of liberty and freedom.

Yet the right to bear arms has also been a constant threat to power-hungry politicians whose only interest is expanding and solidifying their own power. And so the government has waged a near-constant battle to do away with the Second Amendment. And they continue to seek any reason -- no matter how ridiculous -- to heavily regulate gun ownership and permanently confiscate guns and ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

Thousands of Guns Illegally Confiscated!

One of the most shocking cases of gun confiscation in modern times was carried out in New Orleans during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Eddie Compass began their campaign to disarm the people when they announced:

No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.

And with these few words two men began an illegal crusade during which thousands of guns were confiscated. At the same time, these two men unleashed one of the biggest crime waves this country has ever seen.

With law-abiding citizens unarmed and a police force too small to maintain law and order, hundreds of criminals looted home and businesses, defaced property, and carried out numerous violent crimes.

After all, the police couldn't be everywhere at once.

jofortruth

Posted: Dec 6 2011, 11:17 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Can you Guess who has the worlds largest army?
http://www.dailypaul.com/177341/can-you-gu...ds-largest-army

QUOTE

Submitted by blounttruth on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 14:35
in Daily Paul Liberty Forum

True story and most people will never know it.

Here�s an interesting side bar. After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we had a 2 million man army and war ships�...all fighting the Germans.

So, why did they not invade?

After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer�...they know that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them.

The world's largest army... America's hunters! I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin ..

Allow me to restate that number.

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran ..

More than in France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

*************************************************

That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

Food for thought when next we consider gun control.

~ Author unknown
Sometimes I think they phrase: "Lets fight em over there, so we do not have to fight em here" is a weak point. If we were to fight em over here, the war would be a very short and concise one, which shows that the plan for non ending no bid contract wars are here to stay. It should also wake our members of Congress up to the fact we need no Homeland security, as we are the homelands security, and no man will fight harder than he does for his own property, if we could truly own our property.

IF YOU ALLOW THEM TO DISARM YOU, YOU BECOME THEIR SLAVES! REMEMBER THAT!

jofortruth	Posted: Dec 6 2011, 11:25 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Lindsey Williams - 2012 The Beginning Of The End, 2012 will be unlike any year in 2000 yrs (See 3 part series here) http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...topic=9909&st=0 Part 3: http://youtu.be/W32daRa9unE

jofortruth

Posted: Jul 1 2012, 08:10 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

A look at Virginia's new laws that begin July 1
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/ju...-ju-ar-2025826/
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.ex...ul+CHAP0257+pdf
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+SB323

QUOTE

Guns

Virginians may now purchase more than one handgun a month, following the signing of Senate Bill 323, which repealed a 1993 law restricting handgun purchases in the commonwealth.

Va. Senate panel votes to scrap one-gun-a-month rule
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/ja...-bi-ar-1638973/

QUOTE

Advocates for the legislation said the current law has so many exceptions allowing for the purchase of more than one handgun a month for people like police officers and concealed weapons permit holders that everyday law abiding citizens are the only ones who can't exercise a consitutionally protected right.

Virginians, you are being told something with this change in the law! Are you going to heed this warning and protect yourself when the collapse comes? This change wasn't made for no reason! This is about your rights, and taking them back!

jofortruth

Posted: Jul 27 2012, 06:06 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

QUOTE

�The second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time�. ~ RON PAUL

jofortruth

Posted: Aug 2 2012, 02:42 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Bernadine Smith has been defending the 2nd Amendment for decades and she has a Warning to Americans:
http://libertygunrights.com/documents.html

Falsification of the people's approval to destroy 2nd Amendment:
http://libertygunrights.com/CombinedBinder1-7.pdf

QUOTE

... there never was any approval or permission by the people to prohibit their right to keep and bear, use or own firearms: it never hagpened and cannot be so! If this were allowed to happen, we would no longer be a "republic".

She was the guest on the Alex Jones Show 8-3-12 (3rd hr):
http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/alexJones/archives.php

jofortruth	Posted: Aug 2 2012, 06:17 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Open Letter opposing UN Small Arms Treaty http://libertygunrights.com/OpenLetterRandPaul7-26-12.pdf

0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | Constitution/Declaration of Independence/& Other Great Documents | Next Newest »

Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now