When should I carry?

Our freedoms are always only one generation away from extinction.

The "war on guns" is only just now ramping up, and it looks to be a real political battle coming.  The left is throwing everything under the sun at the senate floor in the hopes that something will pass.  Presidential "Executive Order" has already been used, and will likely be trotted out again.

This requires everyone be involved.  Not the activist next door.  Not the other members of some group that you belong to.  Not some other group of people.  YOU.  As a gun owner, as an American, as a free man or woman, as a parent, you need to get personally involved.

We've seen numerous instances of the constitution's system of checks and balances being abused, and even discarded.  The slippery slope of government overreach becoming more and more familiar, even routine.  Ours is therefore an uphill battle.  Yet there are reasons why the GGL (Gun Grabbling Libereals) may yet back down:

• People buying firearms in DROVES and rallying "Molon Labe"
• General public starting (slowly) to be educated on the misnomer of "assault rifles"
• Sheriffs now saying they would not cooperate with confiscation, and would actively prohibit it.
• Several states discussing and passing resolutions that outlaw federal enforcement / confiscation.
• Military not towing the party line.
• Homeland defense "weekend warriors" not willing to go up against such odds.

With everyone against them, why wouldn't they think twice?   They are not giving up.  They just know now that they have to move slower to have any chance of success.  Boil the frog.  They can always manufacture another crisis later...  try again when indoctrinated kids grow to voting age.

Even if we win the current fight over gun-control, we can not rest assured that our freedoms are secure.  Our freedoms are always only one generation away from extinction.

If we wish to win this "war on guns", we must:

• Remain engaged.  
• Educate our children.
• Support organizations like the TSRA and NRA that help fight for our rights.
• Stop supporting the biased propaganda spewing MSM (Main Stream Media).
• Make ourselves flawless examples of responsibility, morality & non-violence lest we be targeted by the MSM.
• Remove politicians who would violate the constitution by:

1. Writing our representatives
2. Eliminating voter fraud 
3. Protect the rights of our active military to vote & be counted.
4. Support campaigns of politicians who support our beliefs
5. Writing to local media outlets
6. Educating the public

Your voice and your vote still counts!

This requires everyone be involved.  Not the activist next door.  Not the other members of some group that you belong to.  Not some other group of people.  YOU.  As a gun owner, as an American, as a free man or woman, as a parent, you need to get personally involved.

NEVER GIVE UP

Quote of the Day

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction; it's not something we pass along in our bloodstream. It must be fought-for, protected, and passed-along for them to do the same"

- Ronald Reagan

FirstWY, AK, TX & MI, now AK joins the "not in my state" group...

As we reported earlier, first it was WY, AK, TX & MI, now AK joins the "not in my state" group...

Legislation introduced in AZ would seek to make it illegal for a Federal agent or any AZ state agent or FFL to enforce any federal gun regulations.

Here's an excerpt from AZ House Bill 2291:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/hb2291p.pdf

South Carolina Bill Creates A High School Gun Class

By Rebecca Leber

One South Carolina lawmaker is taking the NRA’s “more guns will keep schools safe” argument even further, with a new bill that would teach teenagers how to shoot.

Sen. Lee Bright (R), the sponsor of the legislation, argues that “the more guns we have the safer we are.” “[H]ad there been someone in Newtown with a weapon, had it been a teacher, they could have stopped it early,” Bright explained. His bill would allow schools to offer gun training at an off-site location:

Bright says he got the idea after hearing from older constituents who “remembered the days” when students could join a rifle team or learn about shooting during a school day. “We’ve got football, we’ve got basketball, and we’ve got baseball,” says Bright. “I think if they had a hunting team, it would be a great idea.”

The class, dubbed the “South Carolina Gun Safety Program” course, would focus on learning how to properly use a firearm, safety techniques, and the history of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, according to Bright. “The more training we can get on the history of our nation, the founding of our nation, the better,” he says.



The article source is a liberal anti-gun rag, and half of the ensuing comments are more than I can stomach   So I would not recommend clicking it and supporting their web hits, but I'll post the link here as a matter of annotation and credit:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/22/1476831/south-carolina-bill-creates-a-high-school-gun-class/?mobile=nc

GEICO anti-gun stance showing: Canceling auto policies for FFLs

GEICO started as Government Employees' Insurance Company and its now a wholly-owned subsidiary of third richest man in the world Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. You might remember Buffett as Obama's financial advisor during his first campaign for President.

From GunAdaptors in Mile City MN

"Had some folk that did not believe Geico canceled my insurance because I make parts used in the firearm industry . So here is the letter they sent me I blacked out my business name and personal information. So here you go!"

I wonder if this means they'd cancel your policy if they found out you were a CHL?

Gun Control: Catalyst of the American Revolution

EDITORS NOTE:  We are fortunate to have a tool available in our current fight that our forefathers did not.  A tool given to us by our founding fathers through blood sweat and tears:  Representation and a vote.  Write to your representative today, to stop the madness of gun-control and confiscation.


The British Banned Guns On Our Founding Fathers & It Brought About A Revolution
by Tim Brown

Many today don’t realize that we are facing the same sort of tactics by our own Federal government that our forefathers faced from the British just prior to the War for Independence. In fact, I’ll venture to guess that most people never were taught in school what follows in this article. That’s right, gun control is nothing new now, nor was it even new in the twentieth century. It was very much alive in the eighteenth century. So when someone comes along telling you “the founding fathers wouldn’t have envisioned this or that” with regards to arms, just remind them of what they faced during their lifetimes when the primary weapons were single shot muskets and cannons.

Following the events of December 16, 1773, Parliament, with the direct encouragement of King George III, passed the Coercive Acts, or as they were properly known the Restraining Acts, in 1774.

Though Parliament was warned by men like Edmund Burke and Lord Chatham that such legislation would not be wise and would only provoke the colonists more, they failed to listen to reason.

Patriots that heard of the Acts determined that they would fight and die rather than see such laws enforced upon them

Interestingly enough, a South Carolina newspaper essay, which was reprinted in Virginia at the time, recorded that any law that required the military to enforce it was “necessarily illegitimate,”

The British realized that they could not control the people with only 2,000 troops in Boston. So what did they do? They sought to eliminate the people’s ability to firearms and gun powder.

American colonists believed that if the British were going to use force or violence to seize arms or powder, it was an act of war and they would respond in kind.

“The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.”   

- Dave Kopel, Research Director, Independence Institute

Ultimately, do you know what started America’s War for Independence? That’s right, it was a tyrannical government that soft peddled “self-defense” while banning firearms and gunpowder.

"We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.—The latter is our choice—We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.—Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.
Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable… With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves." 

 - Thomas Jefferson

Now we are facing similar infringements upon our liberties, not by a tyrannical government on the other side of the globe with a few troops here on our soil, but by our own Federal government. They are taking the same steps that the British did against our forefathers. The question for you my fellow Americans, is this: Will you surrender to tyranny or will you stand against it? No one can make that choice for you, but remember the lessons of the past that those who surrender their arms, inevitably surrender their liberty and with it their lives. May God grant you strength to stand against tyranny.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/the-british-banned-guns-on-our-fathers-it-brought-about-a-revolution/#ixzz2Ioh2JTJ8

http://lifeasweknowitorsomethingsimilar.blogspot.com/2013/01/gun-control-catalyst-of-american.html

Feinstein’s "Assault Weapon" Ban Coming on Thursday

By Emily Miller

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office confirmed that she will be introducing in the Senate Thursday a new version of the so-called assault weapon ban. A spokesman said the full text will be released at a press conference on Thursday

Furthermore, instead of grandfathering in current firearms, she would create a national gun registry for the government to track lawful gun owners. Magazines would again be limited to 10 rounds.


http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/22/miller-national-assault-weapon-ban-coming-thursday/

North Florida mom pays salary of armed deputy at child’s school

A north Florida woman is paying an armed deputy to patrol her child's elementary school due to safety concerns following the shooting that killed 20 children in Newtown, Conn.

The Daytona Beach News-Journal reports Laurie Lauria has given the Flagler County School District enough money to cover the costs of keeping a deputy at Old Kings Elementary School for two months. And Superintendent Janet Valentine says Lauria has agreed to cover the costs through the end of the year.

There are six resource deputies at the county's high school and middle schools. Officials have considered putting deputies at two elementary schools, but say the costs are prohibitive.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/22/north-florida-mom-pays-for-armed-deputy-to-patrol-her-child-elementary-school/#ixzz2IoQZBwsN

How to stop Mass Shootings

By MrColionNoir

Transcription:

Every time there is a mass shooting, for the next month you'll here "the shooter this, his family that" but when somebody stops a mass shooting from happening all you hear is this <crickets>

Why wouldn't an insecure unstable young man who believed he is invisible to the world and has nothing to live for but  wants to leave his mark on the world before he goes so he can validate his life and make the world stand up and take notice of him NOT commit a mass shooting

The media practically turns these guys in to celebrities overnight.  Hell I take that back they basically turn them into demigods.  Don't believe me?  I'll  give you 10 seconds to rattle off the names of 10 most recent mass shooters in the last decade.  If you're able to mention even one name to yourself, that's insane.

• Whats the name of the guy who had a carry permit that tackled the guy who shot Gabriel Giffords?
• Name the guy in the mall who had a concealed carry permit and stopped and deterred guy who shot the mall up in Oregon.
• Or the name of the person who shot and stopped the kid who tried to shoot up a movie theater a couple of days after Newtown happened?

Not one of these peoples names are identifiable within 10 seconds, but I'm forced to learn the innermost details of the sociopaths lives that try to amass the highest body-count?

Then the media steps in and makes themselves experts on gun control and try to vilify anyone who is not for the hijacking of the Second Amendment rights?  I take that back.  They are natural born rights as human beings for self preservation.

I'm sick of this.  What kind of backwards society do we live in where we glorify the sociopath and then demonize the  good people who want adequate means of protecting themselves from said sociopath?  This is willful retardation at its finest.

And you gawk at the idea of placing armed guards at schools or arming teachers because you don't want the kids going to school surrounded by guns but you are OK with making these places gun free zones while admitting in the same breath that we cant completely stop mass shootings and reality has shown time and time again that obeying a gun free zone sign is not anywhere on these mass shooter's bucket lists.

You want to stop mass shootings?  And I mean stop them in their tracks?  Put people in a position to put these bastards down the moment that they open fire or show up intending to do harm.  These guys are corner campers.  They want an easy body count not a shootout.  You destroy the mass shooters fantasy real quick by sending bullets in their direction.  Right then the fantasy stops and the reality kicks in and that's when they take their own lives.

Then celebrate the heroes that stop the mass shootings.  Let the mass shooter die the same way he lived, as a nobody.  Instead of forcing me to watch a guy with orange hair admire his work every time they bring him to court surrounded by cameras and watch every move he makes like he's Kim Kardasian.  At least I get an endorphin spike when I see her.

The whole anti-gun / pro-gun back and forth fight that happens after every mass shooting is like two bird brain chicks fighting each other over a guy who they thought was their boyfriend, but come-to-find-out he was sleeping with both of them at the same time and now he's standing there watching them fight each other when they should be fighting him.  Fight the bad guy, not each other.  This isn't a pro-gun / anti-gun thing.

Meet the coward in the fantasy and stop them.  And don't glorify them and they will cease to be a fantasy. And they will have to find new ways to make themselves relevant.

Taking away guns isn't the answer.  Its a feel good measure because people don't want the responsibility of being responsible for their own safety.  They'd rather believe that the police will be there when we know and  the police know that they wont.  No-one wants to fight for their protection.  They want the government to do it.,  They want to the police to do it.  Because I'll admit, its scary to think that the only person responsible for your safety is you.  

But guess what?  That's reality.  Cops can't always be there.  Obama definitely cant be there when your life is on the line, or your kids.  The people in the best position to stop mass shooters are the people who are there.  Give them the means to stop these bastards and I promise you all these mass shootings will stop once they realize there is no more free shoots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec

Shooting today at Lone Star College, near Houston TX

Cody Harris, 20, said he was in a classroom with about six or seven other students waiting for a psychology class to start when he heard eight shots. He and other students looked at each other, said “I guess we should get out of here,” and fled.

Mark Zaragosa said he had just come out of an EMT class when he saw two people who were injured and stopped to help them. Officers had not yet arrived, he said.

“The two people that I took care of had just minor injuries,” Zaragosa told KHOU. “One gentleman had a gunshot to the knee and the (other) actually had an entry wound to the lower buttocks area.”

Mark Smith, spokesman for the Harris County Emergency Corps, said four people were taken to two hospitals. He said at least two had gunshot wounds, and one appeared to have had a heart attack related to the shooting. He said one was in critical condition.

Sources continue to reiterate: This appears to be an altercation between two people, and the two injured were caught in the crossfire.

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/shooting-reported-at-lone-star-college-campus-in-houston.html/

Slavery, the Second Amendment, and Danny Glover's lies

Apparently there's been some BS rhetoric getting spewed around ever since actor Danny Glover lied to students on the Texas A&M campus last week, claiming that "The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts" or some other such complete nonsense.

Which is obviously a complete and utter fabrication intended to promote the liberal's unconstitutional gun-grabbing agenda.

The fact that Glover would issue such a statement is just dripping with Irony.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with race or slavery.  And in fact, gun-control laws were long used to oppress freed slaves and keep them from owning or bearing arms! 

Here's a good article to illustrate the point:

Slavery and the Second Amendmentby Roger Hedgecock 

Speaking at Texas A&M last week, actor Danny Glover weighed in on the current gun control debate. 

Glover told a student gathering, “I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.” 

To emphasize the point, Glover restated, “A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is." 

Talk show host Thom Hartmann picked up the theme in a truth-out.org article entitled “The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery.” 

Trashing the Constitution has become commonplace on campus and in Hollywood, but this theme is false beyond the usual distortions of our founding document. 

The Second Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) reads: 

“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.” 

The genesis of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with slavery. It was born as a guarantee against tyranny by the central government. 

In the 1770s, every Englishman (including colonists) was required to be armed and to be on call whenever the king needed to wage war. The “militia” was every able-bodied adult male. The militia was “regulated” by local elected officers. 

Most importantly, the militia was seen as a protection for British citizen rights and against the tyranny of the king. The writers of the 1789 U.S. Constitution had vividly in mind the battles that started the Revolutionary War at Lexington and Concord. 

The British redcoats marched against the farmers of the local militia in those Massachusetts towns to seize their weapons. Paul Revere warned “the redcoats are coming” but the rest of the warning was “to take your guns and powder.” 

Determined to keep their arms, the farmers fired the “shot heard ‘round the world.” This is the “genesis” of the Second Amendment. 

Noah Webster wrote at the time of the debate over the Constitution: “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed ... .” 

Webster warned against a standing army controlled by the central government: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” 

George Mason, in the debate over ratifying the Constitution, noted that the British king’s objective in the recent Revolutionary War was “to disarm the people. That was the best way to enslave them.” 

Even before the Constitution was ratified by the states, eight of the 13 new states had incorporated the English militia concept into their state constitutions. 

Their concern was to protect liberty. For example, here is the wording of the Pennsylvania Constitution adopted in 1776: 

“That the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state, and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up ... .” 

Similar language is found in state constitutions adopted before the U.S. Constitution from Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts to North Carolina and Virginia. From non-slave-holding states to slaveholding states. 

Slavery was not the reason for the Second Amendment. The overriding concern of the Founders was to insure individual liberty and protect that liberty from the federal government.
The liberty of slaves was not protected. In slaveholding states, the militias composed of slave holders no doubt were involved in suppressing slave revolts as far back as 1755. 

It is also true that militias (every able-bodied man) were called out to protect settlers during Indian wars. 

But these instances were not the cause of the adoption of the Second Amendment. The pervasive experience of the bloody Revolutionary War was the “genesis” of the campaign by anti-Federalists to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, including the right to “bear arms.” 

After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the Bill of Rights on the states, including the Second Amendment right to bear arms. This greatly troubled southern Democrats.
In fact, the concept of “gun control” was first introduced (as a ban on “Saturday night specials”) by segregationist Southern Democrats to keep blacks from being armed. 

The first mass confiscation of guns was carried out by the 7th Cavalry against the Sioux after Little Bighorn, which led to the Massacre at Wounded Knee.

Danny Glover and Thom Hartmann ought to get their history straight.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/21/hedgecock-slavery-guns-2nd-amendment

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

60 percent of young Americans plan to purchase firearms, study reveals

By Scott Greer

Sixty percent of high school and college students say they plan on owning guns at a later stage in life, an academic study from American University revealed on Monday.

According to a brand new study, sixty percent of young Americans plan on purchasing firearms in the future.
According to the study, about 40 percent of the American students surveyed said they definitely planned to own firearms once they had established their own households. Another 20 percent said they were “contemplating” owning guns.

The study indicated that there is no significant difference between the percentage of high school and college students who are considering purchasing firearms. Both polled at about 60 percent.

Students who identified as Democrats were twice as likely to fear gun violence as those who were not, the study found. Only 33 percent of the respondents who were questioned were raised in households where guns were owned.

David Burnett, the public relations director of the conservative student group Students for Concealed Carry, told Campus Reform on Tuesday he was not surprised by the study’s result.

“With every single spree killing we’ve seen in this nation in the past twenty years, with every sexual assault that takes place, nine every day on college campuses, with every robbery report we have, with every campus that goes on lockdown, these gun free zones are proven to be indefensible and impractical,” he said.

“College campuses put pictures on the door and expect psychopaths to abide by them,” he continued.  “I think more and more college students have been waking up to this reality in the past five years since Virginia tech and they don’t want it.”

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4576

TX, AK lawmakers introducing bills to permit concealed carry in public universities

By Scott Greer

Republican state legislators in Arkansas and Texas responded to President Obama’s new gun proposals on Thursday, introducing bills that would allow the concealed carry of firearms at public universities.


Lawmakers in two states have proposed legislation that would allow the concealed carry of firearms at public universities.
The bill introduced in Texas was co-authored by 14 Republicans. Prominent authors include Sens. Dan Patrick (Houston) and Jane Nelson (Flower Mound).

The bill would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry their registered concealed handguns on to college campuses and would prevent state universities from passing measures that would restrict that right.

A similar bill brought before the state legislature failed to garner sufficient support.

The University of Texas (UT) President William Powers Jr., opposed the last bill arguing weapons would detract from the university’s academic climate.

Arkansas’s bill, being proposed by Rep. Danny Altes (R-Fort Smith) would also allow university faculty and staff to carry concealed firearms on campus. A similar bill also proposed by Arkansas Republicans would allow residents with concealed carry permits to carry handguns into churches.

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4581

THE 40 PERCENT UNCHECKED GUN LIE

By: John Hayward

John Fund at National Review absolutely dismantles President Obama’s phony “40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check” factoid today.  It’s astonishing just how absolutely and completely false this figure is.  It’s not a little clever wordplay or a bit of disingenuous number-twisting from the President; it’s a flat-out lie, and he knows it.

To summarize Fund’s case: the study that purportedly produced the 40 percent figure (which was actually 36 percent, but Obama rounded it up, presumably because he thinks his target audience can’t handle two-digit numbers) comes from a tiny survey of only 251 people, conducted twenty years ago, which means “most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.”

And those who responded to this survey only thought they might have been buying guns from unlicensed dealers, based on their perception of the seller’s operation.  No effort was made to verify if these impressions were accurate.  Furthermore, the total included guns transferred as gifts or inheritances – transactions not even President Obama’s new proposals really crack down on.

Fund talked with economist John Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime for the true percentage of guns sold without background checks.  ”We don’t know the precise number today,” said Lott, “but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits.”

This illustrates the danger of allowing our perceptions to be manipulated with dubious appeals to authority.  Not all “studies” are equally valid; even the earnest ones can have failures of methodology.  And the people who want to panic us with scary numbers rarely bother to explain all of the variables in the equation behind those numbers.  How foolish would Obama have looked during his big gun control Romper Room press conference if he had said, “A twenty-year old study of 251 people revealed that some of them thought they were buying guns from unlicensed dealers who didn’t perform background checks, and if you throw in all the guns handed down from father to son, you might be up to 36 percent?”

An Obama defender might respond, “Well, the exact numbers don’t matter.  There are still too many unchecked gun sales.  And if we can take an action that saves just one life…” But the numbers do matter, or Obama wouldn’t have cited one.  He made a false effort to turn an emotional argument, or at best a discussion of general principles, into a scientific debate.  If reasonably accurate figures are not important to a discussion, then no figures have any place within it.

If Obama’s gun control case is so strong, why can’t he make it without using cooked numbers, or surrounding himself with children?


http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/17/the-40-percent-unchecked-gun-lie/

Pro 2A Swag

www.shop.modernmusket.com

Obama Playing Chicken with Americans on Gun Control

Obama Playing Chicken with American Men
By Daren Jonescu

The Obama administration's current warpath against so-called "gun violence" -- which is Newspeak for non-violence committed by non-criminals with their non-illegal private property -- is a brazen challenge to America's manhood. The progressives have apparently decided that this is the moment when they can play their ultimate authoritarian hand, and let the chips fall where they may. They believe, in other words, that this is the moment when they may be able to break America at last, one way or another.

Through Obama's forceful, smug insistence on taking action in defiance of Congress, along with the aggressive urging to do so from his sycophants in the progressive elite -- from the vice president and the senate majority leader on down -- the leftists are engaging in a game of chicken with the American spirit that is disturbing both for its immediate intentions and for its revelation of their thought process and game plan.

In light of the well-known fact that their proposals and trial balloons will be judged by millions of Americans to be an outright violation of constitutionally protected liberties -- and liberties of the most emotionally trenchant nature, namely those related to the very foundations of limited government -- the progressives' deliberate projection of haste and intransigence on gun control must not merely be taken at face value, and judged on its "merits." It must also be interpreted -- in other words, one must ask precisely what they are hoping to achieve by attacking the most deeply held principles of so many Americans in such a heavy-handed fashion.

It seems to me that there are two plausible interpretations of their open chastisement of "all this debate" over Second Amendment concerns, i.e., their boisterous spitting upon the U.S. Constitution.

The first option is that they believe the citizenry of the once-freest nation on earth will ultimately be first to flinch in this game of chicken, and back down. This is the simplest explanation. Having tested the waters on so many fronts, and prepared the population with generations of propaganda about the evils of guns (and so little clarity about the meaning of limited government) from the educational establishment and the media, the left may have determined that, for all the tough talk, American gun owners will not, in the end, have the nerve to stand firm against a federal order to produce their weapons for registration, to submit their guns and themselves to a federal tracking system, or even, eventually, to relinquish legally-purchased property that has newly been ruled illegal.

The second possibility is that they know the public has not been sufficiently softened up to begin the "peaceful" disarming of America suggested by option one, and are therefore hoping to precipitate the kind of "serious crisis" the Obama administration has vowed never to let go to waste. This second possibility is appearing more likely to be the administration's real intention each day.

Consider the extent to which the federal government has gone, during the past four years, to brand conservatives, Christians, defenders of the Constitution, gun owners, and in general believers in property rights, as not merely racist and stupid (the usual mantra), but rather as angry, "bitter," and positively unhinged. These are not mere insinuations; government representatives, spokesmen, and apologists have been saying such things with increasing directness and frequency since 2008. A "study" funded by DHS expressly lists people who are "reverent of individual liberty" or "suspicious of centralized federal authority," among the common potential terror threats (p. 9). Obama himself, during his 2008 campaign, suggested in no uncertain terms that "clinging" to a Bible and/or a gun -- i.e., believing in God or the right to bear arms -- is a clear symptom of serious psychological problems, and equivalent to racism. And of course almost every mass killing over the past couple of years has been blamed on the Tea Party by someone in the media (see here) -- until, inevitably, the facts prove otherwise -- thereby creating the general impression that the Tea Party is a natural repository of "people on the edge," regardless of whether they turn out to have committed any crimes.

The Obama team knows full well that its words and actions are causing fear, anger, and heightened vigilance among conservatives. The spikes in gun sales, NRA memberships, and harsh anti-government talk all over the internet are an unmistakable sign of a population preparing for -- for something ugly. And yet they push forward, threatening specific action and escalating the anti-gun rhetoric with each passing day.

And the prodding is clever. Prior to this direct assault on the right to bear arms, the single Obama program most hated by constitutionalists was the Affordable Care Act. Now, ingeniously, the left has found a way to bring these two great affronts to individual liberty together under one umbrella. A major focus of Obama's executive actions on gun violence is the promotion of ObamaCare's mental health provisions as a suitable mechanism for dealing with preemptive psychiatry, i.e., drugging wayward children, labeling people in their federal government records as mentally ill, and using doctors as informants to track guns in private homes.
In sum, they could not be stoking pre-revolutionary fever any more effectively among that minority of America's citizenry that still stands by the nation as an idea, rather than merely as a piece of geography, if they had planned to stoke it. The only question remaining, it seems, is where all of this will lead.

Consider the following possibility -- common sense dictates that the progressives have already considered it. Someday, federal officers are going to visit the home of a man who owns a so-called "assault-style weapon." He has a family and a job. He pays his taxes. He has no criminal record. Not even a parking ticket. He purchased his gun legally. He uses it for target shooting. He thinks of it as an investment in the protection of his family and his nation, and his personal stand for constitutional liberty.

The federal officers are going to tell him that his weapon has been banned, that the deadline has passed for him to turn it in at the local police station, and that he must turn it over immediately. He is going to refuse, on the reasonable principle that a man is not obliged to obey a law that fundamentally violates his constitutionally protected rights. The officers, who will have been trained to regard such "resisters" as hostile and as mentally unstable, will call in for back-up and then give this law-abiding patriot an ultimatum: produce your banned weapon peacefully at once, or be taken into custody on charges of illegal possession of a firearm, and possibly subjected to psychiatric assessment.

If this man gives in and hands the officers his weapon, he will feel for the rest of his life that he has been broken -- that when push came to shove, he did not have the courage to stand up for his children's future. This, in short, is how the federal officials who sent the officers to his door want him to feel, and how they want everyone to feel: weak, ineffectual, emasculated, and submissive. It is how they want you to feel when federal agents molest your wife at the airport, and photograph your pubescent daughter in a naked scanner. It is how they want you to feel about your "private" health records being permanently on file with a half dozen federal agencies, to be opened at their discretion. It is how they want you to feel about the thousand bank-breaking regulations you are obliged to comb through and comply with in the names of "sustainability," "social justice," "anti-discrimination," and a dozen other fronts in the war on self-governance.

These indignities are meant to ease you through the process of acceptance, of acquiescence, of relinquishing all pretences of inviolable principle in the name of getting along.

This scenario -- this Conrad-style moment of reckoning for a man, before himself, his wife, and his children -- will in fact likely be played out in many variations. Those officers might be coming for high-capacity magazines, for guns reported by a child's playmate as unsafely stored, guns reported as unregistered, guns owned by people with relatives who have been diagnosed as "depressed" by a doctor, and so on. Most of the property owners in question will likely give in to the government's demands, and many of them will do so willingly, believing it their duty to obey the law above all else.

Those who do not comply, on the other hand, will be a test case, at the very least. When the government is challenging a proud man's dignity, his natural rights, and his courage in the face of a tyrannical demand, they are daring him to become a martyr to his cause. (See Mark Alexander's declaration at The Patriot Post.) In the authoritarian's mind, government wins either way. If the man gives in, subservience is reinforced. If he does not, then he can be made an example of, to serve as a stern warning to others.

This is not a moment to be taken lightly. Nor is it one to be welcomed with excessive "bring it on" bravado. America, which is emulating the rest of the West's decline, but at double-speed in these final stages, has reached the saddest impasse. Unlike other nations, which have passively sold off their freedom for the false security of a smiling, cradle to grave despotism, America has seen it coming, has resisted it with force, and is now about to be dragged off the cliff kicking and screaming.

The challenge facing the men of America -- not the mere "males," but the men -- is becoming clearer, starker, and more essential every day. That minority of us in the rest of the world who still care about freedom and modern civilization can only watch, with concern, sadness and hope, as the U.S. federal government, having reached its moment of final metamorphosis -- its "fundamental transformation" -- stares its patriotic citizens in the eye and says, "I dare you."

From the land of rebellious individualism of intellect - the land of Madison, Jefferson, Emerson and Melville; to the land of an almost careless abandonment to joy -- the land of Astaire, Ellington, Gershwin and Singin' In the Rain; to the brink of sorrow and downtroddenness, in such a short time, historically speaking. Surely it's too soon for this glorious run to end.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/obama_playing_chicken_with_american_men.html#ixzz2IeGVaGPY 

FLA. DEMOCRATS WANT REPEAL OF 'STAND YOUR GROUND'

The mother of Trayvon Martin and Democratic lawmakers are calling for the repeal of Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law but it's unlikely to go anywhere in the state's Legislature.

Sybrina Fulton joined state Rep. Alan Williams and state Sen. Dwight Bullard on Wednesday in calling for repeal. Fulton's unarmed 17-year-old son was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman last year.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder but claims he acted in self-defense under the law, which says people can use deadly force if they feel threatened.

Williams has filed a bill to repeal it, but it's likely to face opposition from Republicans who control the Legislature. A panel created by Republican Gov. Rick Scott to examine the law has recommended no major changes.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fla-democrats-want-repeal-stand-your-ground

Without a Gun, How Would This Woman Have Saved Her Children?

By Bert Atkinson Jr.

 

 This gun control debate is getting downright exhausting. I know that liberals hate when Second Amendment supporters say something along the lines of, ‘Cars kill people, why don’t we ban cars?’, but the reason these things are said is to exacerbate a point.

Is it the thing, or is it the society? This is a much bigger question, and impossible to pin down, so bear that in mind before you go criticizing anyone or anything in the comments section. My inclination is to say that this is a societal problem. In other words (please excuse the harsh language), people need to get their shit together.

We hear all of this nonstop talk about what guns can do, and why do we need guns that can do this or that, but look at yourself in the mirror – have you ever thought that you wanted to get up and shoot someone? Have you ever wanted to grab an AR-15 and just go blasting off a few rounds on some unsuspecting people in a mall? If you have, please call the police and tell them. Please. However, I suspect that an overwhelming majority of you have never had such thoughts.

I don’t feel like I’m an irrational person. I understand from where the left is coming. In a perfect world, you take guns out of the equation and there is no gun violence. But as much as I hate to say it, we live in America in 2013, not Utopia. There is pain, there is conflict, and there is suffering. There are bad people that can use bad things to hurt good people. It’s a story as old as history. 

My prediction: Obama had a press conference yesterday in which he signed into law 23 Executive Orders concerning gun violence as he was flanked by several school children - to use for emotional appeal - that could not possibly understand the complexity of laws and the Constitution. Going forward, Congress can’t pass an assault weapons ban because, as many people have put it, an assault weapons ban may seem sensible, but would do little to actually curb the amount of violence and would therefore not garner enough support. Then, nothing is done to address many of the other issues that contribute to violence. No more mentions of mental health awareness …until the next school shooting. Then, we start this process all over again next time.

So how can the elitist suits in Washington get anything done to stop crime? Well, there is no great answer, but we need to – as a society – figure out why these people are committing these crimes. That should be step one before anything. They do not commit crimes because guns are available, and that seems to be an idea that is lost upon many leftward leaners. 

If you can understand the root of the problem, you can understand what steps you need to take to prevent these people from going down a road that ends in a mass murder-suicide. In the process, you will not have taken away the gun the mother in the video above needed to protect her and her children from a dangerous intruder.

Video: http://bcove.me/feqzi1np

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30771-without-a-gun-how-would-this-woman-have-saved-her-children/

Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill

By NRA-ILA

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein's website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows:

• Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms.  The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features. 

• Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban. 

• Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein's 1994 ban listed "grenade launcher" as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing "rocket launcher." Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add "nuclear bomb," "particle beam weapon," or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

• Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:

• Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

•  Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," except for tubular-magazine .22s.

•  Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches," any "semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

• Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

• Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

• Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

• Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

• Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban.  Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein's “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.

Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here:  http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx 

Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own "large" magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about the history of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com.


http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

Chicago Style Gun Control Laws: The Picture Page Version

"Time to get your crayons and your pencils"

Guns on Campus in Texas: SB182

Texas State Senator Brian Birdwell filed legislation Thursday to allow students, faculty and staff with a
concealed handgun license (CHL) to carry firearms for personal protection on college campuses. Senate Bill 182 also states that colleges or universities may not circumvent the intent of the Act by imposing administrative bans or penalties on students or employees lawfully carrying their licensed handgun on campus.

This legislation affirms private property rights by ensuring that independent or private universities may establish rules concerning CHL-holders on their campuses, and allows all colleges and universities to establish rules and regulations governing the storage of handguns in dorms.

"For me, this isn't just about the firearm," Birdwell said. "It's about trusting citizens with their God-given, constitutional rights."

SB 182 also includes several statutory clauses to ensure current law is not sidestepped. These include:

• Ensuring colleges and universities may post notices that athletic events and sporting venues are off-limits to CHLholders.
• Clarifying that locations which are prohibited under the Penal Code—bars, hospitals, K-12 educational facilities and 
• churches, for example—will remain off-limits to CHL-holders even if they happen to be located on a campus.
• Providing colleges and universities immunity from liability for the actions of CHL-holders on campus—except in cases where private or independent institutions have adopted administrative prohibitions.

At the time of filing, SB 182 had been signed and joint-authored by 13 of Birdwell's colleagues.
"I'm proud to be filing this bill with the support of so many of my colleagues, as well as the full backing of the National Rifle Association and the Texas State Rifle Association," Birdwell said. "This is a piece of legislation I have consistently heard  about from the citizens I was elected to serve, and I look forward to seeing it enacted."

In a statement, Texas State Rifle Association Legislative Director Alice Tripp said, "The TSRA—the state-affiliate of the NRA—and our 45,000 Texas members strongly support Senator Birdwell and his legislation allowing adult Texas concealed handgun licensees to have this option for personal protection with them in their vehicles, on campus property, and in the classroom. Personal protection is a basic human right."

To obtain a CHL in Texas, a citizen must be at least 21 years old; must pass state and federal background checks; must submit fingerprints to the Department of Public Safety; cannot be chemically dependent, of unsound mind or delinquent in paying official fines, fees or child support; must be eligible to purchase a handgun in the State of Texas; and must complete a minimum of 10 hours of comprehensive training, including a live-fire shooting proficiency test.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9384675/607426963/name/BIRDWELL%20FILES%20CAMPUS%20PERSONAL%20PROTECTION%20ACT.pdf

The Truth About Gun Control Statistics: Homicide vs Self Defense

There are approximately 100 instances of a gun being used to save a life in self defense for every ONE instance of a gun being used in either a homicide, accident or suicide combined.

If you take guns away from law abiding citizens who are defending themselves, and the murder rate will skyrocket.

http://americangunfacts.com/

Current Anti-Gun Bills in Congress

· H.R. 138 would ban transfer or possession of standard capacity magazines, targeting those that hold more than 10 rounds.

· H.R. 141 would impose federal regulation of gun shows. This legislation would require background checks on all gun sales at guns shows, and impose addition federal regulations on these traditional local events.

· H.R. 142 would ban Internet or mail order ammunition purchases, require a federal license for all ammunition sellers and mandate reporting of “bulk” ammo purchases. The record keeping and licensing requirements included here will place a serious burden on buyers and sellers and vastly increase the cost of ammunition—which is why the previous federal recordkeeping requirements were repealed in the 1980s.

· H.R. 21. This bill would make it illegal, for example, to give a firearm as a gift, even to a close family member, without involving a federally licensed dealer.

· H.R. 137, which according to press reports would create a national database of people “prohibited” from buying a firearm. Since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is already supposed to be just such a database, the purpose of the legislation is currently unclear.

·  H.R. 34 and H.R. 117 respectively. Federal law has prohibited the establishment of a firearms owner registration system for decades.  These bills would override these longstanding protections of gun owners’ privacy.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/anti-gun-representatives-introduce-first-wave-of-bills-in-us-house.aspx

New Mexico: The Fight for your rights has begun!

The Assault on Your Rights Has Started in Santa Fe: Rep. Miguel Garcia Introduces Private Firearm Transfer Ban, Gun Tax and Firearm Registration Bill

Gun control advocates are wasting no time.  On the second day of the sixty-day legislative session in Santa Fe, Representative Miguel Garcia (D-ABQ) introduced House Bill 77, imposing sweeping restrictions on firearms sales in the State of New Mexico.

HB 77 restricts ALL private transfers of firearms – not just those taking place at gun shows – including those between family members, friends and co-workers.  Any person who is not a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) would have to contact the New Mexico Department of Public Safety prior to transferring any firearm to any prospective purchaser, provide the department with detailed information on the firearm being sold and the person to whom the firearm is being transferred, and get approval from the department before the transfer is completed.  This includes transfers between relatives, friends and co-workers.  In order to accomplish this, this bill sets up a state-level criminal records check system, which will be subsidized and paid for by lawful gun buyers.

HB 77 imposes a $25.00 fee on private gun transfers – $35.00 if the transaction occurs at a gun show – constituting a tax on gun purchases.  Lawful gun buyers shouldn’t be forced to pay for a system that’s being created under the guise of public safety – all taxpayers should bear the brunt of this cost.  The FBI-run National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which FFLs use imposes no "user fee" on prospective gun buyers.

HB 77 creates a state registry of legal firearms transferors and purchasers.  Private sellers would be required to provide the state Department of Public Safety with the name, address, and telephone number of the transferor; the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the firearm being transferred; and the name, date of birth, race, sex and address of the buyer.  DPS is required to retain a record of this information for five years.  Under NICS, FBI is required to destroy all records of approved purchasers by the next business day.

Additionally, HB 77 imposes recordkeeping requirements on private sellers, requiring them to maintain records of approved transfers for five years, and it contains no privacy protections to prevent (or detect) a person using the system to run a background check on someone for purposes other than a gun purchase.

This measure has been referred to two committees - House Judiciary and House Appropriations - and it could soon be set for a public hearing in the first committee.  Please check www.nraila.org for updates on scheduled action on this measure.  In the meantime, it is critical that you contact House committee members, as well as your own state Representative, and urge him or her to OPPOSE HB 77!


http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/1/the-assault-on-your-rights-has-started-in-santa-fe-rep-miguel-garcia-introduces-private-firearm-transfer-ban,-gun-tax-and-firearm-registration-bill.aspx

Obama's Gun Control plan

A  summary of Obama's Gun Control plan can be found here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Items of note:

• Ban semiautomatic rifles (even more extensive than the '84 ban)
• Ban magazines over 10 rounds
• Ban the importation of “curio or relic” firearms
• Ban private gun sales by forcing background checks through FFLs
• Nanny state review of gun locks and gun safes in your home.
• Encourage doctors to pry into your personal lives and gun ownership status and report it back to DC.

TEXAS: Travis County Commissioners Retreat from Gun Show Ban After Stern Warning from Attorney General Greg Abbott and Input from Gun Owners

BY NRA-ILA

Thanks to the flood of calls and e-mails from NRA members and a warning from Texas’ pro-gun Attorney General Greg Abbott that they would almost certainly face legal action, the Travis County Commissioners voted unanimously on January 15 to back off their proposed ban on gun shows on county property.

In a knee-jerk response to a terrible tragedy that occurred thousands of miles away in a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, the Travis County Commissioners had considered a proposal to ban gun shows on public property and in public facilities, primarily at the Travis County Expo Center east of town.

As a result, the county will honor its contract with Todd Beiter, the owner of Saxet Gun Shows, whose contract with the county runs through January 2014.  This proposed gun show ban was not in response to anything that has happened at Saxet events, but was an emotional reaction to a terrible tragedy.

A special thank you to Texas Attorney General Abbott for his vigilance and to NRA members in Travis County who contacted the Commissioners. Your calls and e-mails made the difference!  Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated on this and other legislative matters, so please make sure to check www.nraila.org for updates

Think government mass murder for 'gun control' can't happen here? It already has

By Kurt Hofmann

The hope here is to direct readers' attention to an important piece published today by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The article is especially recommended to those who believe that the notion of the U.S. committing mass murder in pursuit of "gun control" is a paranoid, right-wing fantasy. If so, it's a "fantasy" that has already happened.

The massacre of Wounded Knee was the direct result of the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry enforcing the government's forcible disarmament edicts against the Sioux Indian Nation.

"December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the army who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the them had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children."

The Army was so eager to kill for the "gun control" agenda that they clumsily killed dozens of their own troops, and so proud of this massacre was the U.S. government that at least 20 of the troops were awarded the Medal of "Honor."

Of course, for those who would argue that butchery committed nearly one and a quarter centuries ago, however evil, bears little relation to what might happen now, a reminder that the federal government's slaughter of scores of men, women and children just under 20 years ago was also motivated by "gun control" is probably in order (not to mention, the fact that our current Attorney General was a central character in determining that the government had done nothing wrong with that particular mass murder).

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence would, of course, argue that the Native Americans who fought back so bravely, so futilely against their butchers were wrong to do so, because the government must have a monopoly on political violence.

The "Battle" of Wounded Knee is the result of the government's near-monopoly on the means of force. That seems to work out rather poorly for the people.

http://www.examiner.com/article/think-government-mass-murder-for-gun-control-can-t-happen-here-it-already-has?CID=obinsite

Gun Confiscation Bill Introduced in Congress

NOTE:  I think Mr. Nimmo is going a bit overboard here calling it "confiscation".  This is for voluntary turn ins for tax rebates, not unlike the local police buy backs that we already have - which by the way do not reduce gun crime.

Gun Confiscation Bill Introduced in Congress
By Kurt Nimmo

On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government.

Cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act,” the proposed legislation represents another effort to convince citizens that they must voluntarily turn in their guns as a civic duty and to do their part to reduce “gun violence” and protect children, as Obama said yesterday.

The bill is yet more evidence that federal and state governments are now pulling out all stops short of door-to-door confiscation in their coordinated effort to disarm the American people.

Strikingly honest language included in the legislation specifies that the bill is part of the government’s “program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons,” in short, a program to disarm the American people.

The bill contains an exhaustive list of so-called “assault weapons” that will garner a $2,000 tax credit, including the much demonized Bushmaster AR-15 allegedly used in the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 14, 2013.

The inclusion of the IRS in the government’s attempt to grab guns is especially foreboding considering its effort to act as a Obamacare compliance enforcer. In July, we reported on a revelation made by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady that the tax agency planned to hire up to 16,500 new agents.

American taxpayers must reject such cynical enticements and stand together and support the Second Amendment against all attacks by Obama and Congress.

The latest foray against the Second Amendment and the founding principles of the republic commenced soon after the Sandy Hook incident on December 15 when California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein exploited the tragedy to call for an attack on America’s “gun culture.”

“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Feinstein said. “I will do another assault weapons ban.”

New York governor Andrew Cuomo jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon a few days later, on December 21, and proposed gun confiscation in the state. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option,” Cuomo said. He was egged on by notorious gun-grabber advocate and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg who also demanded Obama use unconstitutional executive actions against the Second Amendment.

On December 30, Feinstein said America needs to “bite the bullet” and restrict the gun rights of Americans following comments by president Obama that he would support draconian legislation aimed at the Second Amendment.

Over the next two weeks, the establishment media launched an intense anti-Second Amendment campaign and produced corporate polls in favor of “common sense” gun bans. Alex Jones appeared on the Piers Morgan Show and a flurry of pro and con pundits and commentators debated the finer points of stripping Americans of their right to own firearms.

On December 16, Obama and Joe Biden went on national television accompanied by a gaggle of children and pushed the federal government’s anti-Second Amendment agenda. Obama brazenly signed a number of unconstitutional executive actions during the performance instructing the government to roll back the Second Amendment.

http://www.infowars.com/gun-confiscation-bill-introduced-in-congress/

Many More Sheriffs Vow Not To Enforce Federal Gun Control Laws

By Steve Watson

Following Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller’s lead, three more Sheriffs in parts of Oregon announced Wednesday in letters to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that they would refuse to enforce any federal gun laws that are unconstitutional.

Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley told local reporters “I’m going to follow my oath that I took as Sheriff to support the constitution.”

“I believe strongly in the Second Amendment,” Hensley added, urging “If the federal government comes into Crook County and wants to take firearms and things away from (citizens), I’m going to tell them it’s not going that way.”

Hensley told KTVZ.COM that he read Sheriff Mueller’s letter and it spurred him to make a stand. “I said, you know what? It’s a clear statement. He hit the nail right on the head,” Hensley said.

Referring to the recent mass shootings that have been cited as justification to move to impose strict new laws, Hensley said “Banning firearms and magazines, that is not going to cure the problem.”

“They are addressing the wrong topics,” Hensley added. “Kids for years now play video games in which they have committed thousands of homicides. I believe those games are teaching kids games they shouldn’t be doing, instilling a mindset to kill as many people as in a video game.”

 “Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Crook County, Oregon.”

“In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians,” the letter concludes.

In comments to the media, Hensley added “Some people go so far as to ask, ‘Well, are you going to fight our military when they come to take our guns?’ I say absolutely not – we’re not going to get into a gun battle with our fellow citizens. But I will do everything in my power to defend their right to the Second Amendment.”

In addition to Sheriff Hensley, another Oregon Sheriff, Larry Blanton of Deschutes County, told reporters that he will also stand with the Second Amendment.

“Right now, I support the Constitution and I support the Second Amendment,” Blanton said. “I support our citizens and other citizens rights to own and bear arms. That’s my stand. Always has been, always will be.”

Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer also penned a letter to Biden, stating: “I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law abiding citizens is the goal or objective.”

“We live in a free society,” Palmer wrote, “and firearms ownership and the right to defend ones self from becoming a victim of a criminal act or from a far reaching government attempted to enact laws that are unconstitutional.”

Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote a letter to “the citizens of Coos County,” stating
“I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office, including supporting the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.”

“I will also continue to be an avid supporter of Oregon’s Concealed Handgun License Program and in protecting the confidential personal information of each license holder.” Zanni added.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin also sent a letter to the Vice President saying that he “will refuse to participate in, nor tolerate enforcement actions against citizens that are deemed unconstitutional.”

Elsewhere in the country, Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, blazed a trail earlier this week by assuring residents that he would not allow guns to be seized under his jurisdiction.

“They asked ‘how are you going to pull these guns?’, and I said ‘you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County,” said Peyman, adding, “I am responsible for the people inside this county… I couldn’t justify, if Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.”

Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole wrote an open letter to his residents to inform them that he does not accept that the federal government supercedes State authorities when it comes to regulation of firearms.

“I do not believe the federal government or any individual in the federal government has the right to dictate to the states, counties or municipalities any mandate, regulation or administrative rule that violates the United States Constitution or its various amendments.” Cole wrote.

Cole said that the right to bear arms is “fundamental to our individual freedoms and that firearms are part of life in our country.”

The Sheriff said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate that violates constitutional rights, and that he would consider any new federal regulation on guns to be illegal.

In Alabama, Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning told WHNT News 19 that his office will not enforce new gun control legislation if he feels those laws violate the Second Amendment.

“The federal authorities can try to enforce it,” said Dorning. “I’m the Sheriff of Madison County. I took a constitutional oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, to defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama, even if it takes my life. That is my position.”

In Texas, Smith County Sheriff Larry Smith has also said he will not enforce an unconstitutional law that takes away firearms from law abiding citizens in Smith County.

“I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won’t happen.” Smith said.

In Florida, Martin Co. Sheriff Bill Snyder says that any gun control legislation will not matter and it won’t change how he and his deputies do business, because he is not empowered to enforce Federal Law.

Rest assured, there are many more Sheriffs, as well as state and local police who know that they are not required to enforce Obama’s gun control executive orders.

Richard Mack, founder of The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and a regular guest on the Alex Jones Show commented “Now we have good sheriffs who are standing up and defending the law against our own president.”

“I will tell Mr. Obama and everybody else who wants to impose gun control in America, that whether you like it or not, it is against the law,” said Mack.

The 23 executive orders Obama announced yesterday apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement. Without action by the House, it is therefore unlawful to enforce the decrees on sheriffs and other law enforcement departments across the nation.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/many-more-sheriffs-vow-not-to-enforce-federal-gun-control-laws.html