The Republic Revealed

GUN CONTROL

The United States Government Thinks You're A Terrorist. And now they're trying to pass a bill allowing gun-grabbing Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke all your Second Amendment rights at will if he has "a reasonable belief" you could pose a "threat." I know this sounds unbelievable, but read on. As you know, in a report released spring 2009, the goons at Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security classified gun owners, honorably discharged veterans and little old church ladies as threats to the security and stability of the United States of America. Even a gesture as simple as placing a pro-gun bumper sticker on your car, or supporting a pro-gun candidate makes you a potential "domestic terrorist" in the eyes of the thugs running our government. Obviously, your First Amendment rights of free speech mean as much to Obama's Department of Homeland Security as your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama's Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano sees no difference between law-abiding gun owners like you and violent racists who murder and vandalize. But if that's not shocking and outrageous enough, it gets worse . . . Arch gun hater Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has introduced a gun control bill that comes right out of this so-called "Rightwing Extremist" report. I'm talking about S. 34, the shockingly misnamed "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011." I call it the "Disarming American Citizens Act." This anti-gun Democrat wants to disarm you because he fears your pro-liberty views. In fact, your love of freedom frightens him so much that he's now going to great lengths to label you a domestic terrorist. It's the perfect way to silence "troublemakers" like you and me, and to marginalize our influence. And make no mistake: If Congress passes S. 34, Eric Holder would have the authority to deny thousands of innocent Americans their constitutionally protected rights. But this bill isn't just about Eric Holder taking away your Second Amendment rights if you're "appropriately suspected" of "terrorism." S. 34 also allows Holder and his team of gun-grabbing henchmen to "withhold" any and all evidence from you or a court if Holder & co. "determine" that it might "compromise national security." These are the same people who labeled small government advocates potential "domestic terrorists!"  Who cares what they "determine"? Even more ridiculous, S. 34 says the courts "must" rely on Holder's personally "redacted versions" or "summaries" of the "evidence" he supposedly has against you . . . . . . and he never has to release the evidence he claims to have! They could annul your Second Amendment rights and convict you in a court of "law" without a shred of actual evidence . . .  legally! MOST GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION HINDERS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS By: Annette Akerman,  January 19, 2011 In light of the most recent act of unnecessary and unjustifiable murder rampage by the Tucson shooter, and the subsequent upsurge of demand for stricter gun controls, I thought it necessary to write the following report on gun control legislation and how it has worked in the past: Most gun control legislation hinders our Constitutional rights and promotes crime because it is aimed at the wrong people.  There is a growing concern across America regarding the legislation of firearms.  Members of Congress have gone to great lengths to investigate an ever increasing rise in crime and how to stop it.  Gun control has been widely tried with varying degrees of success.  Newspaper and magazine articles have reported on the success or failure of current laws on the possession of firearms.  The statistics speak loudly for themselves. Gun laws today are aimed at the wrong segment of society.  Rather than helping the average American feel safer in his own home, th laws have managed to promote crime. Only one city in America, Roseburg, OR has successfully enacted legislation that had made a difference in decreasing crime within the community.  According to the Star Telegram, "Roseburg became the only city to enact a law requiring each of its home-owning citizens to own a gun.  Further, the use of the gun was condoned as a matter of self-defense of one's own domain."  Interestingly enough, the crime rate in Roseburg decreased by 32 per cent within a year after enacting the legislation.  The difference this law has had on the small community of Oregon has given rise to many questions about decisions made in other cities wherein the possession of firearms is restricted or controlled by laws and law enforcement agencies. Strict control of possession of firearms by the citizens of the community of Boston created the following situation.  The World Press stated, "New legislation in Boston, MA has made the 'Saturday Night Special' an easy object for any crook to own, but has virtually taken the ownership of a gun out of the hands of the average citizen."  In that article it tells the story of a man who tried to buy a .38 revolver, more commonly known as a 'Saturday Night Special'.  After waiting the 10-day waiting period now required by the city of Boston, the man was told it would be another 30 days before he could legally obtain the gun because of a special hold authorities had on issuing permits for this type of gun.  An altogether different set of circumstances were found to be true with two black men who had been arrested for aggravated assault in Boston.  According to the police files, the men "had arranged for the purchase of" exactly the same kind of gun, and had "obtained a 'Saturday Night Special' within 48 hours of parole."  It took 40 days for the honest citizen to own a gun, but less than two days for a pair of criminals to find the same type of revolver and have it in their possession. Perhaps the most widely publicized gun control law on record is the legislation enacted by the city of Morton Grove, IL.  No one is allowed to own a gun within the city limits unless it is an antique and registered with the Sheriff's department.  "Burglaries in the city of Morton Grove increased over 23 per cent for the first year and have continued to mount." according to the Field and Stream magazine.  This is a drastic contrast tot he decreased crime rate of Roseburg, OR. In a congressional investigation conducted by Ted Kennedy, firearms - law authority, Don B. Kates, Jr., testified, "According to available manufacturing and import figures since 1989, America has between 55 and 60 million handguns.  Even taking the lower figure, less than one out of every 6,000 handguns is used in homicide and less than one out of every 400 is used in any kind of violent crime.  (Note that murderers may, and robbers generally will use the same weapon on several different offenses.)"  Mr. Kates went on to state that, "...we already have 20,000 Federal, state and local 'gun control' laws that are effective to the very limited extent that any anti-gun law can control the kinds of people who misuse weapons." Chip Elliott wrote in Esquire Magazine on the uspurge of crime in San Francisco, "In the spring of 1976, we were living in the San Francisco bay area.  Our friends, Boris and Ute -- a Yugoslav sculptor and a German painter -- had just bought a house on Venice, and we quickly rented a house nearby on Electric Avenue....  But it quickly became apparent that all was not as it seemed on Venice."  He goes on to tell of a neighborhood shooting, a robbery two blocks from where they lived, a fatal stabbing, a rape, and several assault incidents.  "We bought a new revolver, a .38 Special Smith and Wesson, and had the hand-grips filed down so my wife could hold it easily.  The two weeks while we waited for the permit to go through were the most terrifying of my life." While over 20,000 laws have been enacted to help decrease the crimes committed with the use of hand guns, the facts and figures still attest to the fact that crime rates are rising at alarming speed.  The laws have simply not met the challege before us.  Outdoor Life Magazine writes, "Here we have Morton Grove and by now, probably several dozen similarly righteous hamlets (to say nothing of San Francisco, Chicago and New York); and states such as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and others sure to come; all eager to finess tough problems like crime with easy 'solutions' such as keeping firearms out of the hands of honest people." In an article entitled "The Press Takes A Second Look At Gun Control" it states, "The major media are beginning to reprt the views of the pro-gun faction -- a major shift from their usual anti-gun coverage. And we say it's about time!" At that point in time the press was taking a second look at their coverage of anti-gun legislation, and they had taken a positive step forward in addressing the opposite side of that coin.  Until recently, the press had remained somewhat mute on the subject, but since the new President, Barack Obama, has come on the scene; that shift has once again taken a drastic step in the wrong direction, both blaming 'political' and highly regarded members of the 'right winged community' for inciting such actions with incendiary speech, i.e. speech that is not politically correct according to the current administration and the mainstream media news reporters (if one can even call them 'news' reporters.) Rather than legislation that takes a negative stand on trying to solve the rising crime rates nationwide, we need to take positive steps forward in addressing the problems at hand.  Our Constitutional right as stated in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution reads in part: "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 intent of this Amendment is made more clearly stated with the following quotes: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.) "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.) "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.) Our average, law-abiding citizen is directly affected by the current laws regulating the ownership of firearms.  Most laws today are sadly misdirected and misguided. There has been error made on the part of many local authorities who believe stricter gun control works.  Through the press and misinformation voters have been duped into believeing the legislation will help.  They type of useless legislation needs to be reevaluated.  Far from helping the typical man-on-the-street, the laws have restricted him so severely in some instances that he cannot even own a gun with which to protect himself. Laws do often inhibit the activities of the law-abiding rather than the criminal.  This has been especially true of our gun rules.  Crime has continued to increase despite the attempts made to curb ownership of firearms.  As citizens of the United States, we are entitled through the sanctity of the Constitution of the United States of America to carry a firearm for our own protection. If laws are to be used to control criminal activity, then they should be directed at the criminal and not at the average man-on-the-street.  As it currently stands, our gun control legislation limits our Constitutional right to own a weapon: it encourages -- even helps promote crime, and is grossly negligent in its aim.  Rather than helping the innocent individual, it hinders and restricts his inherent freedom, and places him in jeopardy as a prime target for criminals. AliceAnnette Obama Administration Moves to Block the Sale of M1s to Law-abiding Americans

-- State Department intimates that these historic relics may be melted down Friday, September 10, 2010 Apparently, things are going so well in the Middle East that the State Department now feels it can turn its attention to banning the lawful possession of firearms by American citizens. In a little-noticed decision in March, the Obama administration reversed an earlier decision and moved to block the importation of 857,470 lawful M1 semi-automatics which were being sold by South Korea in an effort to raise money for its military. According to Hillary Clinton's State Department, this action was taken because the M1's "could potentially be exploited... for illicit purposes." Even worse, a spokesman for the State Department left the impression that the valuable historic relics could even be melted down, as Clinton's husband did during his administration. Suffice it to say that this is just another reiteration of the same anti-gun political theatre. And the cheers coming from anti-gunners like Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign are ample proof of that. Possession of these guns by Americans is lawful. They are antiques of historical interest, particularly for those who, unlike Clinton and her husband, served this country honorably in America's foreign wars. And anyone wishing to acquire one would have to go through an Instant Check. If any American, going into the November elections, had any doubt that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party leaders hate guns and have contempt for the Second Amendment, this is proof.  Reps. John Boozman and Paul Broun are submitting a letter to State Department Secretary Hillary Clinton -- demanding that this unlawful decision be reversed. And we are working with several legislators to offer an amendment on the next available legislative vehicle which would prohibit the administration from blocking the importation -- or even the destruction -- of these firearms.  Gun Owners Association  www.gunowners.org

EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition - Take Action Now

All Gun Owners, Hunters and Shooters:

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) - a leading anti-hunting organization - to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.  If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Larry Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation reported. 

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) - the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry - urges you to submit comment to the EPA opposing any ban on traditional ammunition.  Remember, your right to choose the ammunition you hunt and shoot with is at stake.

The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, please click here. In order to go directly to the 'submit a comment' page for this docket number, please click here.

NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition:

* There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

* Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies.

* A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.

* A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle's recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition - the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.

* Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.

Steps to take:

1. Submit comment online to the EPA.

2. Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban:

Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4700

Fax: (202) 501-1450
Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here.

Lambs To The Slaughter

Smoking-gun evidence of ruling elite's
looming plan to confiscate your firearms

Right now, Washington is scheming and scamming to erode then erase the Second Amendment from our Constitution. And it will accomplish it through the signing of international treaties on gun control, bypassing the normal legislative process in Congress, tightening regulations upon firearm and ammunition manufacturers, using the antigun financing of tycoons and ultimately confiscating all firearms under the guise of terrorism patrol and enforcement.

Without public debate and cloaked in secrecy, gun control will covertly come upon us like a thief in the night. One day, we will wake up to discover that the U.S. has signed a global treaty that will prohibit any transfer of firearm ownership, force reductions in the number of firearms privately owned and eventually eradicate the planet of guns for law-abiding citizens. Of course, the criminals will still illegally have their guns. And on that day, if you do not comply with that global treaty, you will be fined and face imprisonment. This is not a fictitious story or false warning. As sure as government health care has been shoved down our throats, so will the barrels of our guns. And left with little defense, we will go as lambs to the slaughter. 

I believe the political stars are aligning right now for just such a "perfect storm" of domestic disarmament: via the election and work of an antigun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elites and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists from the White House to the Supreme Court, and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives like George Soros.

This is the evidence - the smoking gun, if you will - of the pressing threat to the Second Amendment and our firearm freedoms.

As Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, wrote in the American Rifleman (February 2010): "President Obama's political mantra of 'hope and change' has morphed into a very real threat. Obama's deep curtsy to international arms control has given 'hope' to the international gun-ban crowd that they will prevail.

It was no surprise when Obama was elected that the nation was consumed with other domestic issues and had selected a president with one of the most anti-firearm records in American history. During his presidential campaign, the National Rifle Association outlined more than two dozen ways that Obama has fought against America's Second Amendment firearm freedoms over the years. So much so, that the NRA graded Obama's (and Hillary Clinton's) voting records among other presidential candidates as an "F." (Does that give any freedom-loving firearm bearer any hope now that both are now part of the same administration?) No wonder a Gallup poll in October 2009 revealed that 41 percent of all Americans and 52 percent of gun owners believe that Obama will try eventually to ban the sale of guns.

It was also no surprise, therefore, a year ago this month when Obama personally promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the White House would push to ratify through the Senate the CIFTA (the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms) treaty, which has sat tabled and unapproved by the U.S. Senate since 1997.

But then, as quickly as he initiated the debate, the president just as quickly ceased trying to ratify CIFTA in the U.S. Senate. Why was that? Cato Institute scholar Ted Galen Carpenter said there was a reason that the treaty was tabled a year ago by Obama. I agree. I believe that reason was Obamacare. He knew he couldn't tackle and force through Congress two incredibly hot and volatile issues at once, at least of this caliber. But now that Obamacare is law, it's no surprise that both CIFTA and a separate U.N. small-arms treaty are experiencing a renewed life. And like Obamacare was pitched solely under "health-care reform," you can bet that a small-arms weapon ban will be pitched under "a fight against global terrorism and drug wars."

Trust me that what sounds like a tool being used against terrorism or illegal arm trade will actually further restrict Americans' right to bear arms. Under the disguise of an effort to combat drug violence, the passage of CIFTA or its equal will further clamp down upon our Second Amendment freedoms.

Again, as Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, summarized in the American Rifleman (February 2010): "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international trade between nations, but there's no doubt ... that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control." 

NRA might mean National Rifle Association, but it also means to me, "Never Remove (your) Arms." The fact is, the Second Amendment could even save your lift

That was the case this past year for Vern Grant, a 75-year-old Army veteran with Parkinson's disease and diabetes, who had just suffered through the death of his wife. Two weeks later, Vern was attacked by a burglar in his Washington home. After smashing the windows of Vern's handicap van and scavenging through his medicines, the intruder broke the glass of his back door and entered his home. Vern says the intruder was incoherently screaming.

The intruder nearly killed Vern after hitting him in the head. But Vern was able to grab and fire his gun in self-defense, hitting the suspect. Vern miraculously made it to his neighbor's house, where he sought he 

The suspect was airlifted to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, and Vern was released from the hospital after his head wounds were treate 

Grateful for his life and the Second Amendment, Vern asked a question to a reporter that we all should easily answer, "You'd do the same if you thought he was going to kill you, wouldn't you?"

Yes I would, Vern. In fact, by way of fair warning for any would-be burglars that break into my house, I hope they read the sign on my front porch first: "We don't dial 9-1-1 here."     

 Chuck Norris 

      U.S. Reverses Stance On Treaty To Regulate Arms Trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

Reuters post continues with: The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.  The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty. A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015   

Governments will meet at the United Nations in New York, USA, 14-18 June 2010 to review progress on the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms.

Note:

The Constitution in Article II, Section2., paragraph 2 outlines how Treaties are ratified.

Check this out here>>