Skip navigation

Tag Archives: 2nd amendment

DHS Detains Oathkeepers Heading To Gun Rally

Infowars.com
September 18, 2013

Liberty lovers gathered at the Texas capitol building to show appreciation for the U.S. Constitution.

Some arrived late however, having been detained by the Department of Homeland Security for using a public walkway to pass by a federal building.

One of the DHS agents was not even aware that in Texas, it is legal to carry a longarm.

This article was posted: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 1:38 pm

A REAL American Hero…

Former Iraq veteran Adam Kokesh staged an open carry protest in Washington DC today by loading a 12 gauge shotgun near the White House – committing at least four felonies in the process.

 

Feds Disappear Adam Kokesh!

Infowars.com
May 19, 2013

http://youtu.be/r5ytDbOS_0M

Radio host Adam Kokesh (the armed Second Amendment march on washington guy) was arrested Saturday in Philadelphia during a Smoke Down Prohibition rally.

As witnessed in footage of the event filmed by fellow activists, Kokesh appears to have been arrested for the victimless crime of exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.

The talk radio host recently garnered national attention when he announced a July 4th armed march on Washington D.C. in defiance of the capitol’s firearms laws. As of yet, it’s unclear whether his connection to the upcoming event had anything to do with his arrest.

On the Sunday broadcast of the Alex Jones Show, Alex spoke to one of Kokesh’s crew members, Lucas, who stated the feds haven’t yet disclosed where Adam is being detained.

More on this as it develops.

View videos of the arrest below:

http://youtu.be/NTHBC6JOc4M

http://youtu.be/NNOnooHSwug

This article was posted: Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 8:49 pm

Sen. Manchin: Background Checks “Expand Second Amendment”

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 8, 2013

Democrat Senator Joe Manchin is trying to get another background check bill through the Senate following last month’s defeat of a bill he introduced with Republican Senator Patrick Toomey.

“I truly believe the background check bill is possible to get passed,” Manchin told CBS News on Tuesday.

He also tried to sell the idea that laws restricting and regulating the Second Amendment actually expand it. Manchin said it is the job of Democrats in Congress to educate Americans who exercise the right to own firearms about this new interpretation of the Second Amendment.

“We are going to have to make some adjustments to it and find out where the comfort zone is, but what we need to do really is educate the law-abiding gun owners like myself, people that might belong to the NRA or other gun organizations that don’t believe this is a threat to their Second Amendment. This bill, not only protects your Second Amendment, it expands your Second Amendment,” Manchin told CBS This Morning.

“We had some people who were concerned that it would infringe on inter-family transfers, but it doesn’t at all,” he said. “We are going to clarify that language and anytime that you transfer to family — whether it is directly or online –it will be basically not subjected to the background check because that is a person transaction with a family member.”

Manchin’s government-run universal background system is designed to shut down gun shows and restrict commercial sales of firearms. It has little to do with Uncle Harry selling a shotgun to his nephew. It is about the government knowing how many firearms you own and where they are so they can be confiscated.

“Some of the proposals, like for example – universal background checks – would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights,” Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, said from the Senate floor last month. “One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee – on which I sit – would allow the Attorney General of the United States (Eric Holder) to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns.”

A Brief and Bloody History of Gun Control
by Anthony Gucciardi
StoryLeak

Recently by Anthony Gucciardi: Fluoride Detox: Ousted as Poison, Here’s How To Get It Out of Your System

You or someone you know may see guns as deadly killing machines that are simply to blame for a large volume of homicides across the nation, but a brief look at the history of gun control actually offers a new perspective into the application of guns on an entirely new level. While normalcy bias (a thinking pattern that causes an individual to underestimate the potential of any event or situation due to currently enjoying a normal and cushy lifestyle) can oftentimes lead individuals away from the reality of history, countless citizens around the world have been highlighting the repetitive history that follows gun control.

In this breakdown, we will be examining a lot of numbers and extracting them to get some real answers. Then, we’ll see the source of these numbers and whether or not gun control regulations are reducing or increasing overall crime rates in heavily controlled areas.

The first thing to touch upon, and perhaps most relevant to our modern society, is how deadly firearms really are. First of all, let us examine the factors that are responsible for deaths within the United States. This will put death counts into perspective and allow us to go deeper into the firearm-related deaths themselves later. Examining data from the CDC for the leading causes of death and including death statistics from the FBI regarding homicides, we find the following numbers:

Leading US Killers

  • Annual deaths from heart disease based on CDC data: 597,689
  • Cancer deaths from CDC data: 574,743
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases (CDC): 138,080
  • Stroke deaths (CDC): 129,476
  • Deaths from accidents, unintentional injuries (CDC): 120,859
  • Alzheimer’s disease deaths per year (CDC): 83,494
  • Diabetes (CDC): 69,071
  • Influenza deaths each year (CDC): 50,097
  • Suicide deaths (CDC): 38,364
  • Overall weapons deaths (2009 FBI): 13,636
  • Overall firearm deaths (2009 FBI): 9,146

So there we have the overall death data that comes compiled from the CDC website mixed with the FBI website table that goes as far as 2009. As you can see, the overall firearm deaths are 9,000 per year. If you’ve been following some of the mainstream media rhetoric surrounding guns, you might have thought the number would be at least over 100,000 — perhaps even higher than diabetes or suicide. The reality is that it is quite low overall, despite what you may have been told. But it’s still 9,146, so let’s now break down this figure to get the specific factors.

Of the 9,146 firearm deaths:

  • 6,452 were from hanguns
  • 348 from rifles
  • 418 from shotguns
  • 94 from other guns
  • 1,834 from unknown guns

This is where the numbers cut through even more false information sent forth by the mainstream media. Rifles have been demonized as powerful tools of homicide that are to blame for a large number of yearly deaths, but as it turns out only 348 per year are actually killed using rifles. Now of that number we must ask “how many are using legal weapons and non-gang related?” And furthermore, how many of these murders occur in ‘gun free’ cities? We’ll get to what we know on that shortly.

First, I want to utilize some further statistics from the overall weapons deaths provided by the FBI for 2009. The number, which totals 13,636, also breaks down into several components that will likely be highly shocking when compared to the broken down gun data. Especially when considering that the apparent ‘epidemic’ levels of rifle deaths actually don’t even compare to stabbings, blunt objects like hammers, or even bare hands and feet.

Knives, Hammers, Hands Kill More than Rifles & Shotguns

These FBI statistics really deflate the argument that rifles are ultimate killing machines when you look at how human hands are actually much more dangerous in terms of the sheer numbers. In fact, the digits really deflate the entire movement to ban rifles by realizing that by the same logic bats, hammers, knives, and even hands should therefore be heavily regulated. Going by the numbers alone, all hands should be considered lethal weapons. Of course we know that all hands are not used to kill innocents, just as all guns are not used to kill innocents.

Let’s take a look at the FBI data for the homicides committed via non-firearm sources to get an idea of how it compares to the death toll of key firearms like rifles and shotguns:

  • Knives and cutting tools accounted for 1,825 deaths in 2009, 1,477 more than rifles
  • Clubs, hammers, and other blunt objects totaled 611 in 2009, 263 more than rifles
  • Hands, fists, and feet killed 801 in 2009, 453 more than rifles

At this point one must ask why banning clubs, hammers, and knives is any different than gun control. Beyond that, it would actually be statistically more reasonable when considering the death toll. Even hands and feet would be considered lethal weapons that would require regulation when examining the 801 death count each year. Instead of enacting extreme legislation to regulate these items, however, we generally discount them as irregular incidents that are more to be blamed on the wielder rather than the item itself.

A hammer is usually seen as a tool used in construction, home improvement, or other constructive tasks. A knife is seen mainly as a kitchen instrument. A gun, on the other hand, is oftentimes portrayed as a weapon of non-defense murder as a opposed to a weapon used in the defense of self, family, and innocents. Notice that both purposes are utilized with all of these ‘tools’, it is simply in the perception of what they are that changes. The perception that is created through hysterical mainstream media reports that highlight isolated cases of mass shootings and other events.

Many such shootings are also occurring in ‘gun-free’ areas or strict gun control regions, where access to a gun is supposed to be extremely challenging or impossible. Nevertheless, law abiding citizens are the ones affected while unscrupulous shooters and criminals can access illegal guns with ease.

The Reality Behind ‘Gun Free Zones’ and Gun Bans

Yet another example of rhetoric verses reality, gun free zones and city-wide gun bans actually do not deflate violent crime as you will see below. Notice that below we are examining the statistics, not the emotional ties or opinions relating to gun control. The media uses shooting sprees to prop up the concept that gun bans and gun free zones will somehow stop a deranged killer who has zero regard for the law, when in reality we know this is not a real solution.

Painted signs reading ‘gun free zone’ and gun control legislation that really only affects law-abiding citizens does not prevent mass shootings, as we have seen evidenced by more than one shooting incident. Both the Aurora shooting at the Colorado movie theater dubbed the ‘Batman shooting’ and the most recent Sandy Hook incident in Connecticut both occurred in areas with heavy gun regulation. Amazingly, the Batman shooter actually traveled to the one movie theater in the area that actually did not permit lawful citizens to carry a concealed weapon. According to Dr. John R. Lott in an interview with Newsmax,

”…the one he picked was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed handguns into that theater.”

In both of these incidents law-abiding citizens were not properly armed to protect themselves against a criminal with a gun, and law enforcement (which actually is being shorted on ammunition and weapons themselves due to heavy demand among looming gun bans) can only respond so quickly.

Perhaps one of the most saddening examples of a gun free zone turned bloody, however, is the Fort Hood massacre. Covered extensively years ago, Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 12 United States soldiers, 1 Army civilian employee, and wounded around 30-38 others in a ‘gun free zone’. This was, of course, inside a United States military base — where guns are not allowed to be carried by soldiers. These soldiers, who could at any instant be shipped off to another nation to wage war against other troops with automatic weapons, tanks, and aircraft, were gunned down by a single lunatic amid a failed unarmed defense.

More soldiers would have died if it were not for an armed security guard.

But what about the overall national implications of gun free zones and heavily regulated areas? Also what about the international implications, as some countries have installed large scale gun bans that are similar to many US cities on a grand scale. Well, first it’s important for us to establish the general trend of US crime to begin with. This includes the overall number of violent crime offenses that we can observe using violent crime data supplied by the FBI statistics available on the FBI website.

Let us take a look at the graph below which shows the general trend of overall violent crime offense figures from 2007 to 2011 (the years in which such stats are available):

fbi violent crime

What these stats tell us is that violent crime has been in rapid decline over the past several years by a considerable amount. In other words, despite much of a fuss being made over the apparent necessity to ban guns due to violent crime, the statistics show that it has actually been on the massive decline.

Now in order to compare this to the resulting crime stats that follow the implementation of gun control laws, we need to examine a chart that demonstrates this relationship. For this, we turn to the Department of Justice (Justice.gov), which offers a graph containing figures that help us to understand the link between gun ownership and crime stat fluctuations. As you can see from the chart below, the increased amount of gun ownership throughout the years (which has been quite dramatic) ia known to lead to a sharp decline in violent crime (as can be seen between 1995 and 2003):

department of justic ecrime vs guns

The DOJ chart, as you can see for yourself, spans 40 years and shows that violent crime has plummeted as the number of guns in the United States per 1,000 citizens has gone up exponentially. It would seem quite the opposite would be true if guns were truly dangerous in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

We can even narrow down this area further by examining areas in which gun bans have gone into effect and taking a look at the results. We have established that firearm homicides are much lower than many think, that more guns actually statistically suggests less crime, and now it is time to figure out where the concentration of many gun murders are and why. This is how we take a real approach to the issue and determining a solution.

Chicago is a perfect example of a city that has enacted a ban on all handguns with the minor exception of those who had previous gun registrations before that time. Going into law in 1982, we can see how Chicago’s murder rate spun out of control following the extreme regulations, while the rest of the United States (as we documented in the previous graph) saw a decline in murder rates as guns surged:

chicago handgun murders

Following the handgun ban in Chicago, crime increased by 40%. This trend continued for decades, with police revealing that 96% of firearm murders in Chicago were actually committed by handguns. Handguns, of course, had been banned for decades. As it turns out, criminals were getting a hold of firearms with intent to commit crime while normal citizens were not able to carry a firearm to defend themselves. The criminal, in this scenario, has a distinct advantage as they know that their law-abiding targets cannot carry a weapon in self defense.

Read the rest of the article

May 7, 2013

Copyright © 2013 StoryLeak

It’s Not About Guns: Gun Control Is People Control

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
April 29, 2013

Gun free zones don’t lower crime rates or even prevent mass shootings, so what do they do? Gun control allows megalomaniacal politicians to exercise control over law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional legislation that paves the way towards eroding the Bill of Rights at large.

The simple fact of the matter is that the attacks on the Second Amendment should concern you, even if you don’t own a gun. In fact, I am definitely not someone you would consider a ‘gun nut’. Far from it, I actually grew up with the impression that guns were killing weapons that the average person would never truly need. After all, you could simply call a gun-wielding police officer if anything went wrong. So what drove me to become passionate on protecting the Second Amendment, even to the point of producing the new documentary Disarmed: A History of Gun Control?

It comes down to the fact that gun control and the attacks on the Second Amendment amount to much more than guns themselves. In fact, the Second Amendment’s fall will signify the fall of the Constitution at large — the very fabric of the United States. You see if the government can override the Second Amendment, why can’t they override the First Amendment? Or how about the Constitution as a whole? If we can confiscate all modern firearms and override the Constitution through federal or state law, then the Constitution now becomes a secondary piece of paper.

THE POLITICAL DOMINO EFFECT

Now gun control advocates would never want to give up the First Amendment. In fact, virtually everyone who hates the Second Amendment (which is actually an extreme minority blown up by the media) loves the First Amendment. They would tell you that giving up the First Amendment would ruin the country, no one would be granted free speech — our freedom would collapse overnight.

The error here is assuming that we can permit the government, a government full of power-hungry sociopaths, to eradicate one Amendment while assuming we will preserve the others. How could anyone think this? The answer is that they aren’t thinking, they’re responding to events that the media broadcasts to them in a certain light. Mass shootings in schools and movie theaters have pushed the mantra that it’s the guns that are to blame and nothing else.

You’re not supposed to ponder on why Batman shooter James Holmes traveled out of his way to the one movie theater that did not allow attendees to bring in their legal concealed carry weapons. You’re not supposed to ask about the fact that the Sandy Hook shooting occurred in one of the most extreme ‘gun free’ zones in the nation. You’re especially not supposed to investigate into why Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold was so afraid of the looming concealed carry law in the area. Instead, you’re supposed to emotionally react to the issue of guns. And from that reaction, your response is not supposed to be logical but emotional.

It’s not logically to think that destroying the Second Amendment and eroding our rights to own a weapon will not cause a political domino effect that leads to the dismantling of our Bill of Rights. No, it’s an emotional response that says ‘ban the guns’ without logical thought. Even examining the statistics reveals this to be the case as well.

FORMER OBAMA SECRET SERVICE: IT’S PEOPLE CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL

Former Obama Administration Secret Service member Dan Bongino stated it correctly when he explained in a passionate speech that gun control is not about controlling guns. Instead, it’s about ‘people control’. After withdrawing from the Secret Service without retirement pay to inform the public regarding gun control, Dan Bongino reveals that he is also not a ‘gun nut’ as some might think. It simply comes down to protecting our rights.

New York Police Confiscating Firearms from People Taking Anti-anxiety Medication

infowars.com

The New York State Police are suspending the handgun permits of people in the state who are prescribed anti-anxiety medication, according to Jim Tresmond of the Tresmond Law Firm in Hamburg, New York. Tresmond Law specializes in firearm litigation.

“We are representing a client right now who is impacted by this onerous activity of the government,” Tresmond told WBEN, a news talk radio station in Buffalo, New York.

“We were flummoxed by this whole matter,” the attorney said. “The HIPPA act is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. It’s a gross invasion of our privacy rights.”

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Tresmond said the New York State Police are responsible for taking action against legal firearms owners. “Based on information the county received from the New York State Police, they’ve suspended the permits. The State Police instigates the proceedings.”

Section 9.46 of the NY SAFE Act of 2013 authorizes therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others. If a determination is made that the person in question poses a threat, the provision permits the government to confiscate firearms. The provision is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and the legal standard of probable cause.

Experts said many mental health providers will likely ignore the provision.

NY SAFE was passed by the New York State Legislature on January 15, 2013, and was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo the same day.

Police Confiscate Man’s Guns Over Son’s Water Pistol Threat

In the latest example of anti-gun hysteria, police in New York State confiscated a man’s firearms and revoked his pistol license after his son threatened to use a water pistol against bullies who had taunted his friends at school.

What Part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” Is Confusing?

“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 Second Amendment

Who needs an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine to hunt?”
Guns are dangerous weapons designed to kill people and they should be banned.”
Only Police and Military should be allowed access to semi-automatic weapons.”
Semi-automatic weapons are assault weapons…who needs an assault weapon to shoot deer?”

The above smattering of paraphrased quotes is a compilation of ignorant nonsense that has recently been spewed from the Mainstream like vomit from a possessed little girl. The one thing that stands out the most is that none of the “experts” on “Gun Control” have a clue as to what the Second Amendment is all about. The Politicians spouting this ignorance DO know what they are doing…but continue to do so anyway, proving to We The People just what traitorous scum they truly are.

Our Founding Fathers clearly understood the importance of firearm ownership. The Men who created the Constitution and sacrificed life, limb, property, and family to secure the Freedoms contained therein, truly understood the absolute Need for the citizenry to be armed. In fact, our earliest presidents were unabashed supporters of private firearm ownership, to the point that they felt it mandatory for every Free Man to own a firearm.

In order to understand the True Nature of the Second Amendment, one must first read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights as this places the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution into the context that the Founders originally intended. It is the back story and the reason for the establishment of Ten immutable and Federally protected Rights that can never be removed.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

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

The above statement places each amendment of the Bill of Rights in context of the spirit in which the amendments were made. It essentially states that, due to fear of a Centralized government, States demand that the following ten amendments be enshrined in the constitution as a way to ensure that they will always be protected and sacrosanct. Read it again if you disagree, but the whole point of the preamble is to make sure that anyone who reads the Constitution will understand the depth and importance of each Amendment in regards to the Limited power of the Central Government for the States and to We The People.

 “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 Second Amendment

The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to maintain a Standing Army, a Navy…Yes, an Army…No, and for good reason. The idea being that a Standing Army has only one purpose, which is occupation. The military force of the Republic was intended to come directly from the citizenry, the ARMED Citizenry. Thus, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” literally means that We The People ARE the Army of the Republic. A Government with a Standing Army could turn that army against its own people if the Government became a morally bankrupt Tyrant. This constitutional limitation also means that Imperialism would be hindered, as the Federal Government would not be able to conquer and dominate other peoples militarily. Therefore, without a standing army the citizens are the ones responsible for securing their own freedoms and protecting their homes and homeland.

What Genius!!!

The Second Amendment has another built-in function which is to secure the people against Tyranny from their own government. In order to truly terrorize and dominate a people they must be unarmed and thus unable to defend themselves. This is where the attitude of “Only Police and Military should be allowed access to semi-automatic weapons.” makes me want to deficate razor blades in response to the absolute thick-headedness of the attitude’s owner. Why? The whole concept of the Second Amendment is that We The People will ALWAYS be Armed against ANY and EVERY form of Tyranny.

How can I make a statement like that? Because of the second part, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Notice that NONE of the other Amendments has this peculier rider…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Shall Not Be Infringed means CAN NEVER BE VIOLATED, it means, CAN NEVER BE LEGISLATED AGAINST, it means CAN NEVER BE REMOVED.

“Shall not be Infringed” means that ANY Politician who tries to take away the guns of American Citizens is a Traitor, and Traitors get…(surprise, surprise) SHOT.

Read some quotes from the Men who WROTE the Second Amendment as to its purpose and priority:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
George Washington

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.
George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
-Samuel Adams

So…the next time you hear a Smug Self-Righteous Git declare that “Semi-Automatic Weapons are dangerous and should be banned.”…give ‘em Both Barrels! Just remember that Truth is as unknown to the Tyrant as Snow is unknown in the Sahara.

Stand Up, Speak Out, and Talk Hard!

-Prometheus Unchained
01/11/2012

%d bloggers like this: