IF THE GOVERNMENT IS SO INTENT ON FORCING ITS CITIZENS,
Why not try mandatory gun ownership?

From the good Doctor Zero, Hot Air, Guns Or Butter:

Some 15,000 Americans died last year because they didn’t have it. As many as five million more experienced a significant reduction in their quality of life, including mental and emotional trauma as well as diminished health, without it. Although large majorities of those Americans fortunate enough to have it are satisfied with what they have, many of the poor who need it most desperately simply cannot afford it. The government already exercises a great deal of control over it. Lives could be saved if we made its purchase mandatory, and subsidized those of limited means, to make ownership universal.

No, not health care. Guns.

Dr. Z hammers the point with wave upon wave of facts that are inconvenient to the gun control zombies. Along the way, he weaves a few other themes into a wonderful mosaic of gun rights, limited government and individual choice.

Bravo!

image: RidesAPaleHorse for DBKP

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Forty-four percent favor stricter laws on firearm sales

Related Posts:

• A cold start to fall: over 4500 new snowfall, low temp, and lowest max temp records set in the USA this last week

Total NICS Background Checks Report

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,074,757 checks in August 2009, a 12.3 percent increase from the 956,872 reported in August 2008.

So far that is roughly 9,076,205 gun bought this year! The total is probably more as NICS background checks may cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time.

This latest jump in background checks show that Americans are solidly in-favor of keeping firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens and clearly shows that proponents claiming the USA wants more gun control are blatantly wrong.

Gun Owners Say No to Gun Conrtol with their Wallets
The increased trend of Americans buying firearms at a record pace was once thought to be a one time fluke caused by fears of the new Obama administration expressed lust for more gun control. But now 10 months in and the wrongly named “fear buying” has now become the norm as law abiding US citizen exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms by the millions every month with no sign of slowing down.

The bulk of the buying has been concentrated on the following types of guns or calibers:

• Semi Auto Handguns
• Revolvers
• Ar15s and all variants of the Black Rifle
• .50 Caliber

1.17 Guns for Each Person
Conservative estimates of legally owned guns in the USA put the number at 355,029,250 million guns in the USA. That is 1.17 guns for everyone in the USA and if you listen to the liberal press they are all assault weapons. God bless anyone who tries to invade the USA…

Crime Rates Falling
The most stunning in all of this is that we have not seen an increase in crime, murder rates have fallen across most of the USA and Americans have shown that they can be trusted with firearms ownership.  This is directly in contrast to what the national media and gun control supporters would have us believe.

Gun owners you are clearly the majority!

Related Posts:

• Mirror Imaging Unlocks Masonic Messages in US Symbols

Posted on 12 August 2009 Source: Tenth Amendment Center

by Michael Boldin

Introduced in the Michigan House on August 11, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-5232) seeks “to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in [the State of Michigan]; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements.”

The bill was authored by Rep. Phillip Pavlov and currently has 44 co-sponsors.

While the HB5232’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under amendments IX and X of the constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. There’s been no lack of controversy surrounding them, either.  The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature.  ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma.  Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of http://www.firearmsfreedomact.com/ took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills.  And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010.  Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances.  And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law void.

While many advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

Related Posts:

• To President Obama & All Our Government Leaders
• Unemployment Edges Up to Great Depression Level
• Government Directive Addresses Traveler’s Attempt To Prevent Search In A Timely Fashion
• Held In A Psychiatric Ward & Called “Delusional” For Saying 9/11 Was An Inside Job
• Jackass Alert! USDA: Oh no you didn’t!

Obama Pushes Anti-Gun Treaty / Gun Bans

President Obama supports an international treaty creating sweeping gun control efforts. Click for the full text of this treaty. The below CNN News Story shows the extent to which Obama and the Democrats will go to eliminate the Second Amendment, and this by using a foreign treaty as the process. The second CNN video addresses the Obama’s administration via Eri Holder threatening gun ownership by Americans. Afraid yet?

Related Posts:

• Don’t fall for gun control nonsense
• People “Running” Into Gun Shows, Panic Buying Ammo
• Sonia Sotomayor on Gun Rights and Racial Preferences
• Germany plans national weapons registry, ‘biometric’ gun controls
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days

HOUSTON, TEXAS – The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) agents are in the midst of  fanning out across Texas in order to conduct house by house investigations into what the agency deems numerous  “suspicious” firearms transactions and as a means to combat “narco-terrorism” along the U.S. /Mexican border.

In fact, the “suspicious” transaction searches are so loosely defined, that BATF agents ended up questioning a Houston area pastor who previously purchased two handguns for target practice, which is then flippantly chalked up as “hard to believe”. Additionally, interagency cooperation between the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the BATF have led to  warrantless airplane surveillance of vehicles along the border.

After speaking to five offices within the agencies and being told by several agents they felt “uncomfortable” with my line of questioning, Special Agent, Public Information Officer Perot of the BATF, indicated that aerial surveillance does not require a warrant due to it taking place with the “public sphere” thereby meaning individuals should have no expectation of privacy.

Perhaps even more alarming to Constitutionalists and civil libertarians than an “eye in the sky” with carte blanche authority to surveil, is the fact that the door to door firearms checks come at the behest of a foreign government. In 2008 alone, the Mexican government requested the BATF track down the original owner of 7,500 firearms used in drug crimes at American taxpayer expense.

“Ever turning up the heat on cartels, our law enforcement and military partners in the government of Mexico have been working more closely with the ATF by sharing information and intelligence,”

Kenneth Melson
Acting Director
BATF

Moreover, federal agents lament the tedious difficulty in conducting door to door firearm checks due to a current federal law prohibiting the use of a centralized database for gun owners. Alternatively, Mr. Eric Pratt of “Gun Owners of America” believes that a centralized database would only end up further infringing upon the inherent rights of law abiding gun owners. He goes on to state that criminals will still develop and expand avenues in order to arm themselves regardless of a behemoth centralized registry, just as they have after each previous “needed” addition to the nation’s gun laws. Further, by his analysis this is merely another attempt by federal authorities to scapegoat lawful gun owners when the crux of the issue is really one of border control, or lack thereof.

Related Posts:

• Obama Administration Begins Opposition To States Claiming Sovereignty And Gun Rights
• Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Has Become A Danger To America!
• BLACK AMERICA DEVASTATED BY MASS IMMIGRATION
• Our American Train Wreck – By Accident or Design?

Related Posts:

• Crooked Cops Caught Plotting To Frame Motorist (VIDEO)

June 2 (Bloomberg) — A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington.

“We clearly disagree with the court’s conclusion,” NRA attorney William N. Howard, a partner in Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The next step will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

“We recognize that this may not be the end of this litigation,” Jenny Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago’s law department said, acknowledging the likelihood the NRA would seek further review. “We’re certainly prepared for that if this happens. We’re prepared to aggressively defend our ordinance.”

Second Amendment

Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads in its entirety: “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.”

In Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

“Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.”

Chicago’s law took effect in 1982, Hoyle said. While it allows ownership of long guns such as rifles, they must be registered annually with the city’s police department. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are not permitted.

Some exemptions apply to members of the military and law enforcement agencies.

Following Precedent

Chicago U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur on Dec. 4 rejected the NRA’s request that he apply the Heller ruling to the Chicago and Oak Park laws, stating he was bound to follow a 1982 appeals court ruling upholding a ban by the Illinois village of Morton Grove.

That decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the same body that issued today’s opinion. The 15 judges of the Seventh Circuit hear appeals from the federal courts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Easterbrook, joined by Circuit Court Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, said they, too, were bound to follow the precedent of a higher court, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling on the Second Amendment not applying to states.

An appellate court departure from high court precedent “undermines the uniformity of national law,” Easterbrook wrote.

The judges rendered their ruling one week after hearing arguments.

Applicable Law

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties.

Still, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King allowed to stand an Alameda County, California regulation that outlaws gun possession on county property.

Howard, the NRA’s lawyer, cited the Nordyke ruling as one of the reasons for his client’s challenge to the Chicago court outcome.

“This thing is headed for the Supreme Court,” University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor Richard Epstein said in a phone interview.

“This is a question where you cannot run a split administration and there’s no way the circuits can resolve this amongst themselves,” he said.

The 7th Circuit case is National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, 08-4241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago). The 9th Circuit case is Nordyke v. King, 07-15763, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew M. Harris at the federal court in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net.

Related Posts:

• CASH FOR CLUNKERS: MORE STEALING, MORE DEBT
• Obama Pushes Anti-Gun Treaty / Gun Bans

By: Freedom Fighter

If you support the 2nd Amendment you must pull your membership out of the NRA as they have betrayed American Gun Owners on more than one occasion, the Veterans Disarmament Bill of 2007 and their support for the extension of the assault weapon ban.

HB 2853, a bill to force Oregon into compliance with the Brady Campaign/NRA sponsored gun control bill, HR 2640, passed out of the House Rules Committee today.

Only one member of the committee,Bill Garrard, voted no.

Although several members of the committee expressed concerns about the possible effects of the bill, with the exception of Garrard they all voted to send it to the House floor with a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee.

The NRA’s Oregon consultant, who had previously expressed opposition to the bill, changed his position and declared the NRA neutral on the bill.

We now move one step closer to the complete big brother, centrally located, Federal database of people who will be denied gun purchases.

Because of your efforts, the language in the bill has change considerably, but the outcome will be the same. Sensitive and possibly incorrect information will be forwarded to the Obama controlled FBI. Should your information be incorrect and you either move out of state or attempt an out-of-state purchase, you will then be required to seek relief from an onerous and complicated Federal system. You better have plenty of time on your hands.

We have no reason to believe that any member of the House Rules Committee has actually read the Federal law they agreed to comply with. Regardless, it is important to note that a major component to this bill comes down to money.

If Oregon agrees to capitulate and comply with the NRA’s latest gun control scheme, the Feds have promised to send us money. In these difficult times, money, it seems, really does talk.

That is unfortunate. The Federal law was passed in response to the Virginia Tech murders. But everyone agrees that neither the Federal law, nor this Oregon bill, had they been in effect at the time of VT, would have made the slightest difference.

Furthermore, this bill seeks to identify people who are a “danger to themselves or others.” It’s impossible to avoid asking the obvious question. If someone is a danger to himself or others, why are they walking the streets, where, even if they are magically denied firearms (a fairy tale of course) they still can acquire knives, baseball bats, gasoline and automobiles?

The bill now moves to the full House. It is then scheduled to go to the Ways and Means Committee. From there it could go to another Senate Committee and then to the full Senate. So as you can see, now would not be the time to give up on killing this expansion of a failed gun control scheme.

The next stop is the full House. Please contact your own House Rep and tell them the promise of Federal money should not be the motivation for passing a bill with so many unknown ramifications. You can find your House Rep here. Your Oregon House Rep will be the LAST person listed. Their contact info will be listed as well. A sample message follows:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Representative,

HB 2853 will soon be before you on the House floor. This bill was written to guarantee that Oregon would get some Federal dollars by complying with a Federal mandate to turn over mental health records to the FBI. I would strongly urge you to read the Federal legislation before you agree to force Oregon to capitulate to Federal mandates. I think if you do, you will see that the Federal law is complicated, subject to many interpretations, and prone to abuse. Please vote “no” on HB 2853.

Related Posts:

• Obama and Workers’ Rights in America
• We Have The Moral High Ground
• Ron Paul: Obama ‘deserves an F’
• Why is Orly Taitz in Israel Two Days After Submitting a Forged Obama Birth Certificate to a US Federal Court?
• Who Will Probe The U.N.-Vatican Connection?

A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled today that the Second Amendment doesn’t bar state or local governments from regulating guns, adopting the same position that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, did when faced with the same question earlier this year.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment to strike down a handgun ban adopted in 1976 by the Washington, D.C., City Council. The court, by a 5-4 vote, found that the amendment protected from federal infringement an individual right to “keep and bear arms.”

The decision applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave that is not a state. It left open whether the amendment also limits the powers of state government.

A string of 19th century Supreme Court decisions limited application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. During the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that certain constitutional rights, but not the Second Amendment, could be enforced against the states.

Gun-rights groups challenged ordinances in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., as unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last year. A federal district judge rejected their arguments, a decision affirmed Tuesday by the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Frank Easterbrook observed that an 1886 Supreme Court decision limited the Second Amendment to the federal government. While that decision might be a “fossil,” the lower courts have no power to overrule a Supreme Court opinion even if they suspect the high court may be inclined to do so itself. It was “hard to predict” what the Supreme Court would do should it consider the question in future, Judge Easterbrook wrote.

Judge Easterbrook and the two other Seventh Circuit judges were all appointed by Republican presidents. Judge Easterbrook wrote that they agreed with an unsigned Second Circuit opinion that in January rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a New York state law barring possession of nunchuka sticks, a martial arts weapon. That panel, in New York, included Judge Sotomayor and two other judges appointed by President Bill Clinton.

In San Francisco, however, a Ninth Circuit panel earlier this year held that the Second Amendment applies to state governments, even as it upheld a local ordinance banning guns from county property. One judge was appointed by a Republican president, the other two by Democrats.

Were they to follow the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, Supreme Court “decisions could be circumvented with ease,” Judge Easterbrook wrote. “They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument.”

The split among the circuits increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will step in decide the Second Amendment’s application to state weapons laws.

If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would not be bound by prior high court decisions and could provide her own analysis of the Second Amendment’s application.

Related Posts:

• US may create terror interrogation unit

Damon W. Root | May 26, 2009

President Barack Obama’s announcement that he wants federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter comes as something less than a shock. For months, Sotomayor’s name has topped most lists of potential candidates. With her compelling personal story, which stretches from a Bronx, New York housing project to Yale Law School to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor’s likely appointment as the Court’s first Hispanic justice nicely complements Obama’s own “only in America” narrative.

But when it comes to her judicial philosophy, there are some real causes for concern. In particular, on the hot-button issues of affirmative action and Second Amendment rights, her record suggests a decidedly illiberal vision of constitutional law.

Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.

Ricci’s suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court’s analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes—a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton—to issue a stern rebuke. “The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” Cabranes wrote. “This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

It’s an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, “If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes’ ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed.” Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor’s silent endorsement of New Haven’s reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.

Equally troubling is Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year’s District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC’s handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

“It is settled law,” Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, “that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit’s decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment’s text, original meaning, and history:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

This split between the two circuits means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up the question in the near future. What role might soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor play? As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor’s opinions “demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama’s principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.”

As a respected jurist with an impressive legal resume, Sotomayor appears just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as any recent nominee. But from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government, there are significant reasons to be wary of her nomination.

Damon W. Root is a Reason associate editor.

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• America’s “Money Machine”
• I Am Spartacus! Standing Up to Homeland Insecurity
• The Kingdom of Lies
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto WWII

You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a “B”. This number takes no accounting of reloading or reloaded ammunition.

…..read more at AmmoLand.com if you dare.

And how is Smith &Wesson doing? Pretty good I’d say. It looks like SWHC outperformed the general market’s 30% gain since the lows. Spaceshot!!!

Related Posts:

• Ron Paul – The American Power Elite (Full Interview)
• ARM American Resistance Movement on G20 Summit Sept. 24-27
• Held In A Psychiatric Ward & Called “Delusional” For Saying 9/11 Was An Inside Job
• Unemployment Edges Up to Great Depression Level
• More Than 25% of Americans React Negatively To MSG, Causes Weight Gain

The May 11 issue of the Los Angeles Daily News has one of those news stories that remind me of the story of the guy sent to drain the swamp who has gotten so lost in other issues that he has forgotten his original purpose:

A Los Angeles citywide gun buyback program was called an unexpected success after nearly 1,700 firearms were collected Saturday from owners who’d been promised anonymity, “no questions asked” and — very important — $100 gift cards. …

City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel emphasized the good news, noting the removal from L.A. homes of hundreds of guns that “will be melted down and no longer can be used in a crime.”

The haul was reported to include more than 100 assault weapons, which are illegal for general possession in California.

No, that’s not true. As long as the weapon was registered with the California Department of Justice by the appropriate date, assault weapons are completely legal to possess. But the bigger problem is the “no longer can be used in a crime” part. And that would be because criminals are turning in guns for the lure of the $100 gift card? An armed robber prepared to take some risks can probably make that much in one liquor store robbery — and certainly in two. More importantly, police were very clear about who was turning in guns. LAPD Lt. Stephen Carmona is quoted as saying:

“It’s a pretty good-looking group of citizens,” he said. “We didn’t expect any gangsters.”

Detective Bill Flannery, busy identifying the guns collected in Canoga Park, said he was surprised by “the number of guns that little old ladies are bringing in.”

So, how will having little old ladies turn in guns reduce crime? At least when I lived in Los Angeles, no one I knew lived in fear of the AARP posse. (Perhaps city officials have watched Clint Eastwood’s new movie, Gran Torino, one too many times.)

Clayton E. Cramer is an historian living in Horseshoe Bend, Idaho. His last book was Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie.

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• I Am Spartacus! Standing Up to Homeland Insecurity
• 9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t
• America’s “Money Machine”
• Monsanto and Its Philanthropy

by Mark Yannone

America is reeling in shock after hearing that faker Obama is seeking the ratification of a foreign treaty that would regulate firearms in the United States. That’s silly.

First, Obama is not the president of the United States. He is not eligible to be a president of the United States. So Obama can seek his socks, his lunch, or a ticket back to his Kenyan homeland, but not Senate ratification of a treaty.

Second, the 100 members of the United States Senate have each taken an oath of office at least once, as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The “Constitution of the United States” referred to in that oath of office includes the following inviolable mandate in the Bill of Rights:

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 mere act of voting on a right — yea or nay — is a violation of that oath of office. Our rights, like the right to self-defense, are inherent. They are not subject to a vote, nor can they be “taken away,” as Lou Dobbs loves to say, by any government.

However, those who panic and hyperventilate and dispense misinformation about the power of government are helping government to convince uneducated Americans that government has attained new power over them and that the day is fast approaching when the people will have to surrender in meek obedience to the authorities. In the following video you will see Lou Dobbs do just that. Ignore him and others like him. Instead, do what you can to educate your fellow Americans.

Gun control by treaty

Related Posts:

• America’s “Money Machine”
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?
• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation
• MSM: Revealed – The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich …in the EU

An urgent appeal by the gun control lobby

And now a word from the two-faced National Rifle Association (NRA): Yes, we supported a gun melter for public office.

Related Posts:

• Obama Pushes Anti-Gun Treaty / Gun Bans
• Ron Paul – End the Fed (Hardcover) preorder – $13.19 @ Amazon (40% off)
• To President Obama & All Our Government Leaders
• Ron Paul: Obama ‘deserves an F’
• Compromising Democracy in Honduras