GUNS CONTROL III

[Your Uncle Sam]

.

.

Doctor warns: Obama taking over psychiatry

Exclusive: Dr. Lee Hieb explains dangerous weapon in hands of state

 

In the administration’s latest push to limit the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, the term “mental health” is being bantered about and used as common ground between anti-gun activists and staunch defenders of gun rights.

 

Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican and NRA backer, objected to President Obama’s proposals but agreed the “focus should be on mental health.” Others, while proclaiming support for the Second Amendment, propose “a meaningful conversation about mental health,” or that we should “identify people who are mentally ill.” After all, how could anyone support guns in the hands of the mentally ill?

Wait … not so fast. The problem is one of definition: Who is mentally ill?

 

The use of psychiatry against dissidents in the Soviet Union was one of the major human rights scandals of the 1970s and 1980s. Overt tyrants don’t need to employ psychiatry as a weapon, but establishing a dictatorship that pretends to be a republic requires a stealthy way of silencing opponents. As the Soviets discovered, not everyone is afraid to speak out, and when dissidents are perceived by the public as speaking truth, they must somehow be discredited.

What better way than to be labeled mentally ill? That accomplishes two things: First, the mentally ill person can be silenced and secreted away into a mental institution. And secondly – this is especially important for prominent people who may have left behind their written statement – it discredits the person’s beliefs. If the dissident is determined by “great medical men of learning” to be “mentally ill,” then people will be less likely to take his words seriously.

Nuclear Physicist Andrei Sakharov was sent into interior exile in Gorky for his “peace of mind” after being diagnosed by psychiatrists at the Leningrad Institute as a “talented but sick man.” His sickness came to light when he published a tract in the U.S., recommending build-up of the nuclear arsenal.

Soviet psychiatry in the Brezhnev era and beyond was predicated on the concept of “heterodoxy.” If you didn’t believe the official dogma, you must have been ill. Under the politburo, this meant not believing in Marxism, or having some form of God-centered religious belief.

In 1974, neurophysiologist and political activist, Vladimir Bukovsky and the incarcerated psychiatrist Semyon Gluzman wrote “A Manual on Psychiatry for Dissenters,” in which they provided potential future victims of political psychiatry with instructions on how to behave during inquest in order to avoid being diagnosed as mentally sick.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, political opponents, human rights activists and psychiatrists who did not believe in punitive psychiatry were incarcerated in mental institutions. Gluzman himself spent seven years in the Gulag, and 3 years in Siberian exile for refusing to diagnose a mental illness in a human rights activist.

One of the factors that allowed psychiatry to become so entwined with the totalitarian authority, according to Yuri Savenko, the president of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia, was the total nationalization of the psychiatric profession. In other words, the psychiatrists all worked for and were paid by the government. They no longer were employed by their patients.

Thomas Szasz in his 1984 book “The Therapeutic State,” says the collaboration between government and psychiatry results in a system in which disapproved thoughts, emotions and actions are repressed (“cured”) through pseudomedical interventions. Thus illegal drug use, smoking, overeating, gambling, shoplifting, sexual promiscuity, pederasty, rambunctiousness, shyness, anxiety, unhappiness, racial bigotry, unconventional religious beliefs and suicide are all considered diseases or symptoms of diseases – things that happen to people against their will. This attitude, Szasz concludes, can lead to unwanted treatment being forced on someone – just for his beliefs.

So back to the NRA. I see this one coming. This is a one-two sucker punch let loose in the name of civil society and treatment of poor mentally ill people. The government lets us Second Amendment people keep guns, but only if we are not mentally ill – and it is the government which will define “mentally ill.”

Recently, the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, in returning Vets has been mentioned in the context of gun permits. Of course the government makes a great show of concern for our returning injured vets, making sure that mental health facilities are expanded to insure timely care. And of course, unless the vet has a solid diagnosis of PTSD or some other mental diagnosis, he or she will not be eligible for care. But once given the diagnosis, the veteran is at risk of losing constitutionally guaranteed rights under the rubric of making gun ownership conditional on “mental health.”

Brandon Raub, USMC veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, made quite colorful anti-war and anti-administration remarks in a Facebook page. He was subsequently drug away in handcuffs by local authorities purportedly at the request of mental health workers.

Col. Thierry Dupuis, county police chief, acted under the state’s emergency custody statute which allows a magistrate to order civil detention and psych evaluation of anyone considered potentially dangerous – i.e., he was hauled off and jailed for a “pre-crime.” He hadn’t hurt anyone. He hadn’t done anything overt except express his beliefs on paper. And anyone with a three-inch kitchen knife is “potentially dangerous.”

• You out there worried about Agenda 21? Crazy!
• Have fervent Christian beliefs that leads you to wear long dresses? Crazy!
• Homeschooler? Obvious agoraphobic.

Dr. Charles Sell, DDS, was confined in federal prison for five years and nearly subjected to forced anti-psychotic drugging. He was deemed “paranoid” and thus incompetent to stand trial. After serving many years, he was sprung finally after an arduous legal battle was waged in his defense. Initially charged with defrauding Medicaid, at the end he was found to have “defrauded” the Medicaid system only about $35. His paranoid delusion? That the government was “out to get him.”

Psychiatry is a dangerous weapon in the hands of the state. We cannot cede to the government authority to define mental health, nor allow mental health “experts” to decide our fitness to exercise our constitutional rights. And we must be vigilant as more people disappear into the mental health system.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

.

.

.

.

[Deborah Moore]

Gordon

Wonderful information. A lot of work and I will read it all. Please, if any of you have a chance

call this district. http://youtu.be/F_O-VCyGBh4 

This has gotten out of control. If we can,t do much with Washington right now=this has to be

challenged. More children are being branded "offensive" for having imaginations.

Thanks.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Smoke On This Alert: 10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives

By Clash Daily / 4 February 2013

John Hawkins- The hypocrites who want men with guns to protect them when they’re in trouble, but want to prevent other law abiding citizens from defending themselves love to use anecdotal evidence to make their case. Those of us who are pro-Second Amendment then usually talk about our Constitutional rights or reel off statistics to counter them, but we have our own stories. There are thousands of good and decent Americans who are alive today precisely because they had guns. Gun control advocates might think the world would be a better place if those people and the ones you’re about to read about were dead and the people menacing them had gotten away with their crimes, but those of us who are serious about our Second Amendment rights disagree.

1) On February 12, 2007, a lone gunman, Sulejman Talovic, opened fire at the crowded Trolley Square shopping mall, killing five bystanders. Armed with a shotgun with a pistol grip, a 38-caliber handgun with rubber grips, and a backpack full of ammunition, he set forth on his rampage through the mall.

But he did not get as far as he had hoped. He was stopped by off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden City Police Department, who was at Trolley Square having an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his pregnant wife. When they heard shots, she called 911 and he drew his weapon and confronted Talovic. He was joined by Sgt. Andrew Oblad of the Salt Lake City Police Department. They pinned down Talovic, stopping further deaths, until a SWAT team from the Salt Lake City Police Department killed him.

Hammond, a man with a weapon, was credited with saving “countless lives.”

 

2) That’s right. There was not a mass killing spree in Atlanta on Thursday, but there could have been. We’ll never know — and thankfully so, because an armed guard stepped in.

As reported by USA Today, “A 14-year-old student was shot at an Atlanta middle school Thursday afternoon, and another student was taken into custody, police said.”

An armed guard disarmed the shooter moments after the 1:50 p.m. shooting in a courtyard at the Price Middle School in southeast Atlanta.
Atlanta Public Schools public information officer Steve Alford said the teen’s wound was more toward the back of the neck, WXIA-TV reported.
An armed off-duty Atlanta police officer who works at the school subdued the shooter and had him drop his weapon, Police Chief George Turner said.

 

3) Over the past couple days we’ve been hearing a whole lot about deadly rampages that have occurred throughout America, but what we haven’t heard much about are the deadly rampages that have been prevented thanks to armed, trained, responsible security and citizens. Yesterday in San Antonio, an off-duty police officer prevented mass murder after taking out a gunman before he could kill anyone. Gunfire erupted at the Mayan Palace Theatre on Southwest Military Sunday night just before 9:30 pm. This shooting comes just days after a deadly rampage at a school in Connecticut and sparks memories of the mass slaying at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

Investigators tell News 4 WOAI the gunman is 19-year-old Jesus Manuel Garcia. They say he worked at the China Garden restaurant right next to the Mayan Palace Theater. Police say Garcia opened fire at China Garden because of relationship problems with his girlfriend who also worked at the restaurant, although she was not present at the time. Officers explain that Garcia then continued to fire his weapon across the parking lot and into the theater. Garcia even opened fire on a San Antonio Police Department patrol car explained Detective Lou Antu, spokesman for the Bexar County Sherriff’s Office.

“Everybody was just coming out of the side of the theater, running out the emergency exits. And everyone was screaming and running,” explained a moviegoer named Megan.

Garcia was finally stopped by a deputy who was working an off-duty job at the theater. The deputy shot Garcia four times

 

4) Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

“I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, ‘are you serious?,’” he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

“He was working on his rifle,” said Meli. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
….
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

“I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

 

5) A Texas burglary suspect dialed 911 early Tuesday morning to report that an armed homeowner was threatening to shoot him, MyFoxDFW.com reported.

James Gerow, the homeowner, told the station that he awoke and discovered a man wearing a dark hoodie inside his Springtown, Texas home. Springtown is a small city Northwest of Fort Worth.

Gerow grabbed his gun and followed the man out to a truck in his driveway.

With gun in hand, Gerow convinced the man to drop his keys. He told his wife to call 911 and waited for deputies to arrive.

 

6) On January 19th, an elderly homeowner in MO was forced to defend himself when a 30 year old suspect broke into his home and assaulted him.

The homeowner fired a shot at the intruder, striking him in the arm.

The suspect then fled the scene, but was captured by police after a brief manhunt.

The homeowner was taken to the hospital for treatment of the injuries he sustained in the assault. The homeowner had to be airlifted to a second hospital for head injuries.

The suspect is charged with 1st degree assault and 1st degree burglary.

 

7) There were frightening moments for a Loganville family forced to fight back against a robber chasing them in their own home Friday afternoon.

CBS Atlanta News has uncovered new details regarding a home invasion in Loganville on Friday.

Walton County investigators said the homeowner involved wasn’t the only target and released the chilling 911 call from the incident.

A mom and her twin 9-year-old children tried hiding near the attic – but the crook wouldn’t back down.

Police say the crook was armed with a crow bar and the terrified woman inside the home opened fire on the crook, striking him five times.

 

8) According to The Associated Press, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an armed intruder who broke into his home at approximately 4:30 p.m. Saturday, June 23. At that time, the boy was babysitting his younger siblings, ages eight, 12 and 12.

The incident started with a woman ringing the doorbell to the residence. Since the boy didn’t recognize the woman, he refused to open the door.

A short time later, the boy heard a loud bang, which he correctly assumed was someone attempting to force entry through the door. The boy gathered his siblings and hurried them upstairs as he armed himself with a handgun from his parent’s bedroom.

From the top of the stairs, the boy saw a man break open the front door. When the man pointed a gun at the boy, the boy shot the man. The man did not fire his weapon.

 

9) The 53-year-old woman, who is also a veteran private school counselor, was alone at the time of the Wednesday morning attack. She lives on East Mount Tabor Circle in Duluth.

The woman was getting out of the shower when she was met by a strange man with a kitchen knife, police said. They said there was a struggle in the bathroom, and she fell in the tub. Police later identified the man as Israel Perez Puentes, a Cuban national who lived in Alpharetta.

“The male was armed with a kitchen knife, a struggle ensued between the two of them. She fell in the bathtub injuring herself,” Gwinnett police spokesman Edwin Ritter said.

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower rod, and he forced her into her bedroom, police said. They said she told her attacker she had money in the room. But she grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times, police said.

Police said the man ran out of a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at the Gwinnett Medical Center. The victim, who was injured in the scuffle, was also taken to the hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries. Police have not released her name.

 

10) Monica Jones said Thursday she was more angry than afraid when she rushed to the aid of a screaming neighbor girl, pointed a shotgun at a man who had allegedly ripped off the youngster’s clothes, and warned: ”Stay put or I’ll shoot.”

”You don’t think about getting hurt,” Ms. Jones, a mother of three, said in an interview. ”If someone is getting hurt, I can’t close my door.”
Police credit Ms. Jones’ quick action with preventing the 12-year-old girl from being raped.

”She’s a heroine,” said police Capt. Robert Richters. ”She did an outstanding job – simply outstanding.”

But Ms. Jones, 28, said her actions under the circumstances were only normal.

”I wasn’t going to stand back and let this man take this child and do awful things to her,” she said. ”She wasn’t nothing but a baby. If she were my child, I would hope somebody would be there to save her.”

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

State Becomes Ground Zero in Gun-Control Debate…

(Washington Post) – For a day, Annapolis is about to serve as the epicenter in the national debate over gun control.

As many as 3,000 gun-rights advocates have begun amassing outside the Maryland State House to protest Gov. Martin O’Malley’s proposed gun-control legislation, as well as that being pushed by President Obama in the wake of the school shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn.

SPECIAL: Join TeaParty.org to Fund “Youth Firearms Training Initiative”

By coincidence, Obama is also in town to talk gun control. He’s huddled in a private meeting with Senate Democrats, who are on a retreat about a mile away at an Annapolis hotel.

The day’s main event will be the first public hearing of O’Malley’s proposed gun bill. The governor is seeking to institute some of the nation’s strictest gun-licensing requirements, ban assault weapons, and expand the number of people who can be disallowed from owning a firearm because of mental health problems.

Over 200 people have signed up to testify for and against the measure. O’Malley is expected to open the hearing with a plea for lawmakers to come together on gun control.

His proposal, however, is already caught in a tug of war between members of his own party.

Liberal Democrats, intent on capitalizing on public support for gun safety after the massacre, have introduced more than dozen pieces of legislation that add several additional gun-control measures.

Some more conservative — and powerful — Democrats, meanwhile, say O’Malley’s plan goes too far, and they are working to carve it up into pieces that might make the licensing portion more difficult to pass.

https://ssl.washingtonpost.com/actmgmt/registration/login/long?appn...

__________________________________________________________________

MILLER: Obama’s traveling gun show

President hits the road to spread anti-Second Amendment message

By Emily Miller- The Washington Times, Tuesday, February 5, 2013

President Obama hit the road Monday on a nationwide gun-grabbing tour. His show doesn’t have many fans inside the Beltway, since being seen favoring gun control can be the kiss of death for senators with rural constituencies. So Mr. Obama is trying to shore up fence-sitting members by bringing his community organizing skills to their districts.

His first stop was Minnesota. “I need everybody who’s listening to keep the pressure on your member of Congress to do the right thing,” said Mr. Obama, surrounded by uniformed officers at the Minneapolis Police Department Special Operations Center.

“Ask them if they support common-sense reforms like requiring universal background checks or restoring the ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” Mr. Obama added, “Tell them now is the time for action, that we’re not going to wait until the next Newtown or the next Aurora.”

An extensive 2002 study by the Centers for Disease Control examined firearms laws from all across the country and concluded none were effective in thwarting violent criminals. Such facts can’t always stand up to the effect an all-out White House campaign can have on public opinion. A Pew Research Center Poll released Thursday shows that support for the “assault weapons” ban reached 55 percent. Two years ago, a Gallup poll put support for the ban at only 43 percent.

Liberal governors are harnessing the public’s fears and sense of helplessness over rare mass shootings to rush through new gun control laws. Since New York hastily enacted a radical law earlier this month, five others states — New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware and Maryland — have tried to fast-track their own onerous restrictions before memories of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School begin to fade.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama will be in Annapolis to address the Maryland Democratic Senate Caucus retreat on the same day that the state Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee holds a hearing on expanding existing gun restrictions.

Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley is pushing the General Assembly to reduce the arbitrary magazine capacity limit from 20 to 10 rounds and prohibit all “assault weapons” Current owners would have to register their guns with the state police by November. The Maryland proposal would also require a license to rent or buy a handgun.

Those applying for such a license would have to take an eight-hour gun class, much like the course that was recently abandoned in the District after Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy L. Lanier testified it was unnecessary.

Mr. O'Malley would exempt shotguns and “hunting rifles” from the licensing requirement, even though some permissible firearms can fire more powerful rounds than the vilified AR-15 style “black rifles” he wants completely outlawed.

The gun-rights group Maryland Shall Issue is arranging pro-gun testimony and a rally outside the capitol in protest. “O'Malley’s bill does nothing to reduce crime — it would ban firearms that the FBI says are not even used in violent crimes in Maryland,” said Patrick Shomo, the organization’s president.

Like a nervous rock star, Mr. Obama is trying to find a new audience for songs that are no longer popular. Once the lights go down, the public will realize they’re hearing the same old tunes.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC.

__________________________________________________________________

Caught on Camera: Joe Biden admits gun control will not stop mass shootings or save lives

________________________________________________________________

February 8th 2013: Peaceful demonstration at every state capital for our 2nd amendment rights Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers Founder

Oath Keepers Founder, Stewart Rhodes, will speak at the gun rights rally in Providence RI ~ On Friday Feb 8th 10:00 AM, at the Capital.  Attend a rally in your state!

 

Rhode Islanders will join thousands of other Americans in a nationwide event being held at every state capital, on Friday,  10 a.m. (local time) to show support for our right to keep and bear arms.

Oath Keepers are encouraged to attend any rallies held in their state.

 

Across the nation, states are looking to create even more gun regulations. In January, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, after violating the NY legal process and rushing the legislation through under dark of night, signed into law the New York Safe Act.  Essentially turning law-abiding American gun owners into felons overnight simply by possessing any magazines that hold more than 7 rounds.  On Sunday, January 6th, 2013, Staff Sgt. Nathan Haddad, a highly decorated combat veteran, was driving through Jefferson County New York when he was randomly pulled over for a vehicle check. Haddad, who had five 30 round empty magazines in his possession, was arrested by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and charged with five felony counts. He is now facing 35 years in prison, seven years for each empty magazine. This attack on Hassad is seen for what it is, an attack on every law abiding citizen in America. The Second Amendment clearly states:  "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.""

 

We hope this rally will show public officials, that the community will support them when they uphold their oath to the Constitution and they will be held accountable if they choose to dishonor that commitment to their constituents."

 

Among the many prominent speakers at the Providence, RI rally will be: Stewart Rhodes (The founder of the national Oath Keepers organization)  along with Blake A. Filippi, from the 10th Amendment Center (The 10th amendment Center has been instrumental in passing various Frearms Freedom Acts in over 16 states and counting).

 

Join the national event page on FaceBook:  "Peaceful demonstration at every state capital for our 2nd amendment rights"

 

Join the Providence event page on FaceBook:  "Providence peaceful demonstration for our 2nd amendment rights"

 

If you think you have something more important to do this Friday "You Don't!"

Comment Here:

OathKeepers.org

____________________________________________________________

Gun Owners of America Oppose Joe Manchin’s Veterans Gun Ban and National Gun Registry   Reports out of Capitol Hill reveal that just-reelected turncoat West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin is about to stick a big knife in the back of American gun owners.  And to make matters worse, he's lying about what he’s doing. Both Manchin and House anti-gun crazy Carolyn McCarthy are claiming to be “working with NRA” to enact gun bans and national gun registries.  NRA says flatly that Manchin is lying, and we believe he is. (The Hill, 1/24/13) Ironically, Manchin was the “gun owner's best friend” on November 5 -- the day before his reelection to a six-year term let him to pull a great big “gotcha” on those West Virginians who were tricked into believing his representations. But make no mistake about it:  Joe Manchin’s draft would impose a gun ban on veterans and would set up the framework for a national gun registry. 150,000 honest law-abiding veterans are currently in the NICS system.  They didn’t do anything wrong; they honorably served their country.  But when they sought VA counseling for a traumatic combat experience, the VA appointed a fiduciary to oversee their fiscal affairs and then took away their guns.  And, again, there are 150,000 honest veterans in the system. New York Senator Charles Schumer viciously fought a Coburn amendment on the DoD bill which would require that veterans get their day in court before their rights were taken away from them, and he won. What the Manchin bill is about is insuring that “bad guys” like veterans can’t get guns.  And, under Barack Obama's “Executive Action #1,” the NICS list could soon include tens of millions of additional soldiers, police, firemen, and other law-abiding Americans. But veteran disarmament is not the only problem with Joe Manchin’s gun ban. Manchin's bill would set the framework for a national gun registry and impose a chokehold on gun sales.  There are at least four big reasons for this: FIRST:  Every gun owner in the country would have a “Form 4473.”  Increasingly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives are going into gun dealerships and illegally copying all of those 4473's. SECOND:  The FBI refuses to tell us how or whether it's complying with federal law by destroying the Brady Check names, rather than keeping them for a national gun registry. THIRD:  As it is, the Brady Check system is breaking down on days such as last year’s Black Friday -- outlawing all gun purchases.  If you have to drive 200 miles from your farm to sell your gun to your neighbor, this effectively outlaws any efforts to sell or buy a gun. FOURTH:  Increasingly, the FBI is blocking transfers because someone’s name is “similar” to someone else.  When the legal purchaser complains, the FBI's response is “Sue us!” ACTION:  Please click here to contact your U.S. Senators.  Ask them to oppose Joe Manchin’s veterans gun ban and national gun registry.  Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable. Please forward this e-mail to friends and family Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 703-321-8585 www.gunowners.org Contact Form If this alert was forwarded to you, you can subscribe to receive al...

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here. _________________________________________________ VIDEO: Newtown Father Blasts Gun Control (Info Wars) – “You will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands” In testimony that was universally ignored by the mainstream media, Newtown father Bill Stevens blasted attempts to use the Sandy Hook tragedy as a poster child for gun control, telling a public hearing, “You will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands.” Last week, MSNBC deceptively edited a clip of Neil Heslin, the father of Jesse Lewis, who was murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, to portray second amendment activists as insensitive by claiming they were heckling Heslin when in reality they were answering a question he had asked them. FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Don’t Let The Government Take Your Guns! Protect Your Second Amendment Rights! However, the network failed to broadcast statements given at the same hearing by Bill Stevens, father of a 5th grader who attends a school in Newtown and whose classmate’s little sister was killed at Sandy Hook.   Calling gun control bills currently proposed “asinine,” Stevens quoted the Connecticut state constitution, which reads, “Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Noting that inalienable rights could not be diluted by legislation, Stevens added that the final report on what happened at Sandy Hook would not be completed until the summer, and that the facts were not even known.   “Criminals and tyrants – tyrants especially – beware – lockdown is not an option at the Stevens residence and 911 will be dialed after the security of my home has been established,” said Stevens, adding, “Why is that same security my daughter enjoys at home with her Dad not available at school in Newtown – that is what you should be considering, not making her Dad a criminal.” Stevens then quoted Charlton Heston, remarking, “I will tell you here today, you will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands,” before slamming his fist on the table as the audience cheered. While anti-second amendment rhetoric from parents of Sandy Hook victims has been obsessively aired as a platform for Barack Obama’s gun control agenda, voices of dissent have been silenced. Stevens’ testimony was completely ignored by networks and big newspapers, with the only mainstream media outlet to even mention his statement being the Connecticut Post. http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-newtown-father-blasts-gun-control... _________________________________________________________ Massive crowd converges on capitol Developing.... A massive crowd has converged on Annapolis Wednesday to rally against a proposal by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley that would ban assault weapons and require residents to obtain a license before purchasing handguns. Thousands of Second Amendment advocates gathered outside the State House to show their disapproval in advance of a Senate hearing on the legislation to be held Wednesday afternoon. “Criminals love gun control,” read one sign at the rally. “It makes their job safer.” Mr. O’Malley, a Democrat, is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, as are numerous supporters and opponents. The rally was organized by several gun-rights groups whose leaders spoke alongside Republican lawmakers in opposition to the governor’s bill, which would add Maryland to the 11 states that require residents to apply for and receive a license before purchasing a handgun. His legislation would also lower the limit on magazine capacity from 20 to 10 rounds and would require license-to-purchase applicants to pay a $100 fee. Mr. O’Malley has argued that the bill will improve safety in the wake of last year’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn., while gun-rights advocates say it will mainly affect law-abiding gun owners and do little to stop criminals. Maryland Republicans have compared the bill’s $100 fee and heightened training requirements to poll taxes imposed in many Southern states during the Jim Crow era, which were often designed to discourage participation by poor, black citizens. “Basically, with this licensing provision in the governor’s bill, only rich people are going to be able to afford guns in the state of Maryland,” Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin, Cecil Republican, said last week. “Whether the governor likes it or not, owning a gun has been proven through the courts to be an individual right.” ____________________________ BRUCE WILLIS: Don't Infringe on Second Amendment In this picture made available Tuesday Feb. 5, 2013, US actor Bruce Willis , arrives for the premiere of the movie 'A Good Day to Die Hard' in Berlin, Germany, Monday Feb. 4, 2013. (AP Photo/dpa, Britta Pedersen) US actor Bruce Willis poses during a photo call to promote the movie 'A Good Day to Die Hard' in Berlin, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2013. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber) Prev 1 of 2 Next LOS ANGELES (AP) — Bruce Willis says he's against new gun control laws that could infringe on Second Amendment rights. The "Die Hard" star also dismisses any link between Hollywood shootouts and real-life gun violence. "I think that you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone," Willis told The Associated Press in a recent interview while promoting his latest film, "A Good Day To Die Hard." ''If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?" Willis' fifth outing as wise-cracking cop John McClane, due in theaters Feb. 14, comes as his action franchise marks its 25th anniversary. The 57-year-old actor will also be seen firing away at bad guys in the upcoming sequels "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" and "Red 2," both due later this year. But he believes "the real topic is diminished" when observers link Hollywood entertainment with high-profile mass shootings like those last year in Connecticut and Colorado. "No one commits a crime because they saw a film. There's nothing to support that," Willis said. "We're not making movies about people that have gone berserk, or gone nuts. Those kind of movies wouldn't last very long at all." Willis added that he doesn't see how additional legislation could prevent future mass shootings. "It's a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families," he said. "I'm a father and it's just a tragedy. But I don't know how you legislate insanity. I don't know what you do about it. I don't even know how you begin to stop that."

[Deborah Moore]

They have no laws: when the laws are already written. They need to read the
US Constitution. Thanks Helen.
Americans want to know.
.......................................................................................................................................

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Obama’s hypocrisy: Assault weapons OK for government employee ‘pers...

January 29, 2013, 12:00 am

http://netwmd.com/blog/2013/01/29/11222

While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. …

Critics, such as Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball, are already blasting the DHS request, arguing that the government deems these firearms as suitable for self-defense but want to ban civilians from owning them.

“Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self-defense,” Mr Ball said.

- The Washington Times, January 27, 2013

What a surprise. It seems that the hypocrites who govern us want to protect themselves with weapons that they would deny their own constituents. But defenders of the right to bear arms as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment aren’t being complacent. They’re fighting back against anti-gun shills like President Obama (D) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Not so fast there Diane and Barack. The Associated Press just released an article entitled “Democrats [Ds] may stand in Obama’s way on gun measures.”

[TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS]

In their attempt to gut the Second Amendment, Obama and Feinstein have proposed, among other extreme measures, a “ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines,” like the AR-15. But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is “seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips ‘suitab... So what does DHS’s desire to purchase 7,000 AR-15s tell us? According to TheBlaze:

… Critics of such a ban on semi-automatic rifles are already arguing that the government is showing its hypocrisy by essentially saying they are good ‘personal defense’ for them, but not for American citizens. When civilians own semi-automatic rifles, they somehow become ‘assault weapons.’” …

The anti-gun gang is not only hypocritical, but deceptive and duplicitous. For example, the AR-15 and civilian version of the AK-47 are not “assault weapons.” Let’s turn to the U.S. government itself to dispel the myth that “assault weapons” have anything to do with “assault” or military use:

… As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]

Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire…

It is very disturbing for President Obama to run around trying to ban “assault weapons” while his own administration put the same type of weapons into the hands of murderous Mexican drug cartel members. You haven’t forgotten his “Fast and Furious” debacle, have you? Weapons provided to Mexican criminals by the current administration have led to the murder of many Mexican citizens as well as two U.S. federal agents trying to do their jobs.

Is there any merit to the gun-ban crowd’s proposals? When looking at various studies done after the 10-year federal assault weapons ban passed by Congress in 1994, the answer is murky, but basically “no.” From CNN:

… A provision in the 1994 law required the attorney general to deliver a report to Congress within 30 months of the ban evaluating its effects.

The summary of that report, conducted by the National Institute of Justice, said that “the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not been demonstrated.”

The authors of the study suggested further tests of enforcement techniques, including “strategic crackdowns on ‘hotspots’ for gun crime and strategic crackdowns on perpetrators of gun violence. The authors suggested these techniques might be “more immediately effective, and certainly less controversial, than regulatory approaches alone.”

A June 2004 University of Pennsylvania study found that the ban succeeded in reducing crimes involving assault weapons. But the benefits at the time were outweighed by increased use of non-semiautomatic weapons, which the study said were used more frequently in crime. The researchers could not credit the ban with a drop in overall gun violence over the same period.

The study did point out that since assault weapons were used no more than “8% of gun crimes, even before the ban,” its impact was likely too small to reliably measure. …”

From the Washington Post:

… While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here’s the UPenn study again: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.” …

Many Americans like their civilian versions of certain military rifles, whether it be for target shooting, hunting, collecting, and/or self-protection. CBS calls the AR-15 “the most popular rifle in America.” Good citizens like large-capacity magazines for convenience (e.g., on the shooting range) and also to be prepared for catastrophic events. It wasn’t that long ago when:

… The Los Angeles riots stunned the nation in 1992, claiming more than 50 lives in that city. As the unrest approached Koreatown, store owner Kee Whan Ha mobilized his fellow business owners to arm themselves and defend their property. …

Whether it be threats from Mexican drug cartels infiltrating the United States, armed to the teeth; or gang-related shoot-outs; or burglars; law-abiding American citizens should have the right to protect themselves from such threats. They should also have the right to choose the weapons and accessories they deem appropriate for self-protection, within reason. AR-15s and large-capacity magazines are within reason:

… The AR-15 has become very popular with law-abiding citizens. By 2007, even The New York Times wrote that the AR-15 and similar guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders” (Andrew Park, “A Hot-Selling Weapon, an Inviting Target,” June 3, 2007). In response to consumer demand, nearly a half million AR-15-type rifles were manufactured in the United States in 2009. These days, you can even buy one at Wal-Mart, which is a pretty good sign that these are popular, mass-market products.

While the prohibition groups hysterically clamor about “assault weapons,” more and more people are buying AR-15s, just as they’ve bought other rifles descended from military arms throughout history. There is a very long tradition in which the civilian versions of service rifles have become standard firearms for hunting, target shooting and lawful self-defense. The Spencer repeating rifles and 1903 Springfield bolt-action followed this path and so did the M1 Garand after World War II. This isn’t unique to America; the military 1898 Mauser quickly became one of the most popular actions for hunting rifles in the world. Today, the AR-15 continues that venerable tradition. …

The prohibitionists have convinced tens of millions of people that the AR-15 is some sort of ultra-powerful firearm that is meant to be spray-fired from the hip, for rapidly slaughtering people.

In truth, the AR-15 is at the low end of power among rifles. And when you pull the trigger, it only fires one round. …

In fact, the guns are not more “dangerous” than other standard firearms. They do not fire faster, nor do they fire more powerful ammunition. And they are certainly not “unusual.” Today, the AR-15 is the best-selling firearm in the United States. Instead, widespread experience demonstrates the AR-15 is “in common use” and is “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” There are more than 3 million of them in the hands of law-abiding American citizens. …

People who forget history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. In all the hoo-ha surrounding the current gun debate, it seems there are many people in our ruling class who have forgotten — or want citizens to forget — the reason our Founders enacted the Second Amendment:

… “We need these rifles because the government has them,” Alwood [a firearms trainer and consultant] explained. …

“[Without the Second Amendment] there is no way to resist the government, voiding all other amendments,” Alwood said. “Why should [the government] continue to give you your freedom of speech if there is no one to stop them[?] It’s the only safeguard we have to protect us from a tyrannical government. … Look at all countries in trouble with dictators, they have absolute gun bans.”

…

Would Obama or Feinstein call Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers, a “lunatic” or “fanatic?” He helped build the great society into which these two politicos rose to public office. On December 26, 1787, Hamilton wrote:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, cloathed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance.

When you think of the preservation of democracy in the United States; the welfare of yourself, family, friends, and community; your right to the pursuit of liberty and happiness; and, your right to protect yourself, family, friends, community, and nation; who would you trust? Would you trust in the beliefs of soon-to-be-forgotten politicos like President Obama or Senator Feinstein, or would you trust our Founding Fathers, the men who created the greatest and freest nation in world history?

TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS

Write a polite and factual letter to the president and each of your elected representatives in Washington. Keep it short and sweet and to the point (e.g., “I urge you to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s gun control legislation” and/or “why can the DHS use ‘assault weapons’ for ‘personal protection’ but I can’t?”). State the facts. Follow up by calling each of your elected reps, making a short statement emphasizing what you composed in your letter. Using any/all of the following links, you’ll find the resources you need to:

• 1) email, send a letter to, and call the president;
• 2) email, send a letter to, fax, and call your two senators and your H...; and,
• 3) write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

You can also enter your zip code below and find contact information for all your elected representatives or click on these links:

• The President and Vice President
• Your U.S. Senators
• Your U.S. House Representatives
• Tweet to a Representative

[Deborah Moore]

It is so frustrating. So controlling, arrogant, misleading, outrageous.

Thanks, from a very sad Conservative.