Skip navigation

Tag Archives: second 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

Advertisements

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.

Big Sis Coordinating Gun Confiscations

DHS collaborating with NY state officials to target Second Amendment rights

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 15, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security is collaborating with New York State government officials to confiscate guns belonging to people who are deemed, often erroneously, to have a mental condition, according to radio host Tom Bauerle.

“NY State Talk Radio Host Tom Bauerle discussed on his program that several sources inside NY State Govt have told him that the Dept of Homeland Security played an active role in meeting and collaborating with NY State Officials to develop and implement the confiscation scheme that targeted David Lewis and an as yet unknown number of others,” reports Ammoland.com.

Bauerle is a daily host on WBEN, based in Buffalo, New York.

Back in March it also emerged that the DHS was working with the Department of Revenue to collect information on gun owners in Missouri.

The fact that the DHS is coordinating with state government officials on gun confiscations is particularly unnerving given recent developments.

As we reported last week, the federal agency is testing a number of different drones at a scientific research facility in Oklahoma that have sensors capable of detecting whether a person is armed, stoking concerns that the federal agency is planning on using UAVs to harass gun owners.

The DHS has committed to purchasing more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year, along with thousands of armored vehicles. While Americans are having their gun rights eviscerated, the government is seemingly arming itself to the teeth.

Under the NY SAFE Act, anyone considered as having a mental condition can have their firearms seized by police and their Second Amendment rights suspended. The law encourages therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others.

Last week, State police in Erie County, New York admitted they had wrongly confiscated the guns of 35-year-old college librarian David Lewis, who was prescribed anti-anxiety medication by his doctor yet was targeted after being falsely labeled as having a mental condition that could lead to violence.

Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs admitted that police called him to clarify that they had wrongly enforced a pistol permit suspension on Lewis, highlighting the fundamental flaws in the newly passed law.

“I think that first and foremost, it stems from a flawed law that was passed so quickly without forethought on how something would be implemented,” said Jacobs, adding, “Until the mental health provisions are fixed, these mistakes will continue to happen.”

Lewis is now taking legal action, with his attorneys noting that protections should have been in force under The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule, which establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

As we also highlighted recently, numerous veterans are being forced to undergo “psychiatric evaluations” before having their guns confiscated, in another example of how the Veterans Administration is accelerating a purge of armed ex-servicemembers in accordance with a federal government demonization campaign that has labeled vets domestic terrorists.

The NY Safe act is just one stepping stone to total firearms confiscation, an end goal that gun control advocates have openly admitted.

As we reported last week, Democratic Austin City Council member and potential next mayor Mike Martinez admitted during a speech last weekend that the Obama administration’s long term gun control agenda is focused on banning firearms altogether.

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

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Monday, April 15, 2013 at 7:58 am

DHS-funded course asks cops if they will confiscate guns from Christians

Colorado troopers trained to consider Christians as dangerous terrorists.
Infowars.com
April 10, 2013
Kurt Nimmo

Bob Livingston of Personal Liberty Digest has posted an email written by Colorado Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge.

In the email sent to a blogger, Trowbridge describes how Christians and so-called sovereign citizens are actively demonized by the government and troopers are trained to consider them dangerous, even terrorists.

The letter was also posted on the Red Statements website on April 5.

Trooper Joe Kluczynski, a CSP analyst with the Colorado Information Analysis Center, used training materials provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

Infowars.com has documented how the DHS works hand-in-hand with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, two organizations that specialize in churning out propaganda designed to demonize and marginalize patriot and constitutional groups.

DHS boss Janet Napolitano showered kudos on the ADL during a conference held in early 2009. “In recent years, the Department has placed our employees in your advanced training school to educate us on the tactics used by extremists and terrorists,” Napolitano told conferees.

In March, the Southern Poverty Law Center sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urging the federal government to establish a task force to investigate the supposed domestic terror threat posed by the likes of Alex Jones, We Are Change, Oath Keepers, the Constitution Party, the Tyranny Response Team and thousands of other Americans who dare question the government.

On April 8, Michael Snyder wrote about a U.S. Army Reserve training presentation that labeled evangelic Christians as “religious extremists” and Christian organizations as “hate groups.”

“Topping the list is Evangelical Christianity,” Fox News wrote about the presentation. “Other organizations listed included Catholicism, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Ku Klux Klan, Sunni Muslims, and Nation of Islam.”

According to Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge’s email, the DHS-funded Colorado Information Analysis Center training session not only told troopers Christians pose a threat to law enforcement, but also asked if they would confiscate firearms if ordered to do so.

Trowbridge’s email follows. It was sent on Friday, April 5:

On April 1, 2013 I attended training in La Junta, Colorado hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP).  The training was from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm and covered two topics, Sovereign Citizens, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs.  I was pretty familiar with motorcycle gangs but since we often deal with the so-called sovereign citizen groups I was interested to see what they had to say.  The group consisted of police officers, deputies, and CSP troopers.  There were about 20 people in attendance.

Trooper Joe Kluczynski taught a 2-hour section on sovereign citizens.  Kluczynski spent most of his two hours focusing on how, in his view and apparently the view of Homeland Security, people turn to the sovereign citizen movement.  Kluczynski started off by saying there are probably some sovereign citizens in this room and gave a generalized list of those groups that have sovereign citizen views.  Among those groups, Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and “fundamentalists”.  Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by “fundamentalists” but from the context it was clear he was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or “too seriously.”

While Kluczynski emphasized that sovereign citizens have a right to their beliefs, he was clearly teaching that the groups he had listed should be watched by law enforcement and should be treated with caution because of their potential to assault law enforcement.  Kluczynski explained why he believed these groups were dangerous saying they were angry over the election of a black president.  When someone in the group suggested the failing economy was probably much more to blame, Kluczynski intimated that those who are not going along with the changes in America will need to be controlled by law enforcement.  Kluczynski even later questioned some of the troopers present if they were willing and prepared to confiscate “illegal” weapons if ordered to.

Kluczynski’s assignment with the CSP was an Analyst for the Colorado Information Analysis Center, (CIAC).  CIAC is funded by Homeland Security funds and run by the CSP.  Kluczynski said he gets his information from the Department of Homeland Security.  Kluczynski said he was leaving the CSP at the end of that week (March 29, 2013) to begin his new career with Homeland Security.  I thought he was perfect for the job.

Ron Trowbridge
Undersheriff
Prowers County Sheriff’s Office

The Colorado State Police subsequently issued a statement downplaying Trowbridge’s description. Sergeant Mike Baker, a public information officer with the CSP, told The Blaze that Trowbridge’s accusation about the content of the training presentation was not substantiated by others in attendance.

“A law enforcement training class offered by the Colorado State Patrol on April 1, 2013, in southeastern Colorado has come under scrutiny from one of its attendees, a local county undersheriff,” the release states. “The specific assertion was that the Colorado State Patrol would target members of certain religious or political ideologies.”

The CPS statement claims officials had spoken with “several officers who attended this same training” and they did not interpret Kluczynski’s presentation in the same light as Trowbridge.

“We regret that he misrepresented the training material in a way that clearly is not the position of the Colorado State Patrol,” the release states.

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.

Just a random thought…

Ive been noticing the rhetoric and attitude from the White House and State-run media. With the presidents efforts stymied by popular opinion and the gun control debate being lost in washington…keep your eyes open for a false-flag attack.

It just “feels” like something wicked this way walks…

Stand Up, Speak Out, and Talk Hard!

 

-Prometheus Unchained
03/07/2013
Via mobile

How To Start A Militia

1. The absolutely first thing that you will need to do is to find a group of people who are in love with the United States of America, who are true patriots, and in the core depths of their heart want to keep, defend, and protect the constitution. Your potential fellow militia members who want to start a militia need to be dedicated and 100% available and willing to attend your militia meetings.

2. All of your potential militia members who want to start a militia with you need to have an understanding of why you want to start a militia. What is your militia’s purpose? What are the core values? Everyone who decides to start a militia with you needs to be aware of, understand, and agree with the goals and purpose that you have set out while starting a militia.

3. Racism, antisemitism, sexism, and other hate issues should not be the reason that you want to start a militia. This is un-American and should be treated extremely harshly.

4. Be absolutely sure that you train your militia often and in a coordinated, professional manner. To start a militia properly, you need to be sure that you are not just focused on guns and ammunition, but also be focused on physical fitness, tactics, coordination, and other areas that are needed to start a militia.

5. Make sure that you clearly outline every person’s place while starting your new militia. Be sure to use each new member’s skill sets, training, background, experience, passions, and hobbies to your advantage. When you start a militia, you need to remember that each person needs to have a specific duty or job to perform. Militias do not always hold ranks, but each man is usually free to come and go. Out of respect, he should be keeping his place in your militia.

6. Make sure that you start your militia in an organized way, and that you keep your members up to date with a website, newsletters, and other media that will help your new militia stay organized. Distribute videos and other materials to people in your community to help you learn how to start your militia.

7. Keep your militia small – when your militia ends up at around 40 people every meeting, it’s time to split the militia into two groups. Now, you’ve not only started one militia, but you’re learning how to start other militias as well!

– Andrew Hallinanhttp://www.startamilitia.com/

 ** Article taken from http://www.articlesbase.com/free-articles/how-to-start-a-militia-2158910.html

%d bloggers like this: