Obama and the liberal progressive democrat machine is proceeding with their plan of a national takeover

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

Gun Confiscation is KEY in their takeover plan.

`Second Amendment

February 24, 2013

23 comments »

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

• 706

   
  EmailShare

(Info Wars) – DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.”The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.

The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”

The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.

The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.

It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.

A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.

The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the sent to military veterans states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”

“US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both,” the Gateway Pundit remarked.

http://www.infowars.com/doj-memo-outlaw-and-confiscate-all-guns/

`

Ever since the horrifying Sandyhook massacre, the Obama administration has been centered on getting our guns rather than identifying people would do us harm. We want justice for those innocents slaughtered at Sandyhook and we'll use our guns to get it.

"Out of my cold dead hands" . . . .

`

`

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

The Right to Self-Defense

Judge Andrew Napolitano

In all the noise caused by the Obama administration's direct assault on the right of every person to keep and bear arms, the essence of the issue has been drowned out. The president and his big-government colleagues want you to believe that only the government can keep you free and safe, so to them, the essence of this debate is about obedience to law.

To those who have killed innocents among us, obedience to law is the last of their thoughts. And to those who believe that the Constitution means what it says, the essence of this debate is not about the law; it is about personal liberty in a free society. It is the exercise of this particular personal liberty -- the freedom to defend yourself when the police cannot or will not and the freedom to use weapons to repel tyrants if they take over the government -- that the big-government crowd fears the most.

Let's be candid: All government fears liberty. By its nature, government is the negation of liberty. God has given us freedom, and the government has taken it away. George Washington recognized this when he argued that government is not reason or eloquence but force. If the government had its way, it would have a monopoly on force.

Government compels, restrains and takes. Thomas Jefferson understood that when he wrote that our liberties are inalienable and endowed by our Creator, and the only reason we have formed governments is to engage them to protect our liberties. We enacted the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to restrain the government. Yet somewhere along the way, government got the idea that it can more easily protect the freedom of us all from the abuses of a few by curtailing the freedom of us all. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's where we are today.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd cannot point to a single incident in which curtailing the freedom of law-abiding Americans has stopped criminals or crazies from killing. It is obvious that criminals don't care what the law says because they think they can get away with their violations of it. And those unfortunates who are deranged don't recognize any restraint on their own behavior, as they cannot mentally distinguish right from wrong and cannot be expected to do so in the future, no matter what the law says.

When the Second Amendment was written and added to the Constitution, the use of guns in America was common. At the same time, King George III -- whom we had just defeated and who was contemplating another war against us, which he would start in 1812 -- no doubt ardently wished that he had stripped his colonists of their right to self-defense so as to subdue their use of violence to secede from Great Britain. That act of secession, the American Revolution, was largely successful because close to half of the colonists were armed and did not fear the use of weaponry.

If the king and the Parliament had enacted and enforced laws that told them who among the colonists owned guns or that limited the power of the colonists' guns or the amount of ammunition they could possess, our Founding Fathers would have been hanged for treason. One of the secrets of the Revolution -- one not taught in public schools today -- is that the colonists actually had superior firepower to the king. The British soldiers had standard-issue muskets, which propelled a steel ball or several of them about 50 yards from the shooter. But the colonists had the long gun -- sometimes called the Kentucky or the Tennessee -- which propelled a single steel ball about 200 yards, nearly four times as far as the British could shoot. Is it any wonder that by Yorktown in 1781, the king and the Parliament had lost enough men and treasure to surrender?

The lesson here is that free people cannot remain free by permitting the government -- even a popularly elected one that they can unelect -- to take their freedoms away. The anti-freedom crowd in the government desperately wants to convey the impression that it is doing something to protect us. So it unconstitutionally and foolishly seeks, via burdensome and intrusive registration laws, laws restricting the strength of weapons and the quantity and quality of ammunition and, the latest trick, laws that impose financial liability on law-abiding manufacturers and sellers for the criminal behavior of some users, to make it so burdensome to own a gun that the ordinary folks who want one will give up their efforts to obtain one.

We cannot let ourselves fall down this slippery slope. The right to self-defense is a natural individual right that pre-exists the government. It cannot morally or constitutionally be taken away absent individual consent or due process. Kings and tyrants have taken this right away. We cannot let a popular majority take it away, for the tyranny of the majority can be as destructive to freedom as the tyranny of a madman.

• 
• Judge Andrew Napolitano

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Obama Poised to Carry Out Hostile Military Takeover of US

Email

Print

I’ve been told by a number of people that it would be impossible for any person to stage a military or hostile takeover of the United States.  Ten years ago, I would have agreed with them, but not now.

In the past year, President Obama has taken a number of actions that when added together clearly indicates his plans for a military or hostile takeover of the United States.  And for the first time in my life, I not only believe it could happen, but I am firmly convinced it’s going to happen before the 2016.

To begin with, Obama has been tailoring the US military to his personal agenda.  He is filling the ranks with gays and lesbians who will now follow him to any extreme because he is their champion.  He has all but shackled chaplains from preaching Christianity to the troops, who by the way, aren’t even allowed to have Bibles in some areas in the Middle East or any other semblance of Christianity. For the military coup de gras, he has been tailoring his top military leaders by asking if they are willing to shoot Americans.  Those that answer yes, are put in key positions while those that answer no are basically seeing the end of their military careers.

Next, the Department of Homeland Security has been stockpiling millions of weapons and billions of rounds ammunition.  The federal government even has NOAA stockpiling weapons and ammunition and they aren’t going to be using it to predict the weather.  This is unprecedented in American history and has no purpose or basis other than the use against the American people.

The massive push for gun control has only one purpose and that is to disarm the American people.  There are more guns in private ownership than there are people in the US.  That would make a hostile takeover more difficult, costly and time consuming.  However, the stockpiles of weapons and ammunition are just for that purpose, because Obama knows that there are a lot of Americans who will not give up their guns so easily.  Attorney General Eric Holder has already warned gun owners to cower like smokers.

One of the problems with the guns in the hands of people is that the government doesn’t know where they all are.  That’s why they are pushing for complete gun registration and background checks for everyone who owns a firearm, regardless of any grandfather clauses.  Under Obamacare, they are pushing doctors and medical staffers to gather information on their patients as to whether or not they own a gun.

Under the National Defense Authorization Act, the federal government has the legal right to indefinitely detain anyone they deem to be dangerous to the country.  They do not have to produce any evidence, they do not have to obtain a warrant, and they do not have to give you the right to an attorney.  All Obama or Eric Holder have to do is say you are a threat and that could be the last anyone sees of you for who knows how long.

Obama has also issued an executive order that gives him absolute power and control over all means of communication for any reason including an emergency.  The executive order includes all television, radio, cable, internet and cell phone communications.

Lastly, Obama is already placing drones in the skies over America.  His chief puppet, Attorney General Eric Holder has ruled that not only are the drones legal, but that Obama also has the legal right to use them to shoot Americans on American soil.

When you put this all together into one package, it’s obvious that the stage is set for Barack Hussein Obama to use force in a hostile takeover of the United States.  All he has to do is declare a state of emergency (mostly likely prompted by a forced economic collapse).  This will allow him to control all forms of communication.  Both military and DHS trained personnel will then start rounding up everyone that has or still opposes Obama and detain them under the National Defense Authorization Act.  Those that resist will be face lethal force from the drones and/or the heavily armed military and DHS troops.  Anyone resisting will be shot, since he has been given the legal authority to do so.

If Obama fears a threat from another nation, he would not be slashing military spending, cutting our nuclear arsenal down to a third of what it was and he wouldn’t have NOAA stockpiling millions of weapons and ammunition.  Everything Obama has being doing and putting in place is pointed inside the US, not outside.  We are his target, not Iran, Syria, China, North Korea or al-Qaeda.

If you don’t believe this will happen prior to the 2016 election, then please explain to me the purpose of all these things that have been strategically placed at this time.  Also, I suggest you do a little studying of history in nations like Germany, Russia, China and other socialist nations.  They all thought it could never happen to them and it did and it all started with a tyrant just like Obama gaining power and outlawing guns!

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

TUCSON, ARIZONA QUIETLY PLACED UNDER MARTIAL LAW?

By Darren Weeks

March 8, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Mayoral resolution approved by council gives power to military

Martial Law is defined by Random House dictionary as:

1. the law temporarily imposed upon an area by state or national military forces when civil authority has broken down or during wartime military operations.

2. the law imposed upon a defeated country or occupied territory by the military forces of the occupying power.

In my last article, I explored the Martial Law declaration that was issued in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and its devastation. I made the statement that I believe we are beginning to see the unfolding of a new norm. A trend seems to be evolving where local, state, or regional officials are using states of emergency or outright Martial Law declarations to deal with small-scale problems.

Since that time, we have seen three states — Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts — all issue emergency declarations, restricting travel, due to an anticipated snowstorm. One might ask how could it be that northern states might be so ill-prepared for a major snowstorm so as to warrant the suspension of thousands of individuals’ right to travel? Imagine... snow in the north! In the winter! Who would have thunk it?

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick issued an executive order on February 8th, banning all civilian travel with certain very specific exceptions — mainly emergency services, the media, and those contributing to critical infrastructure and resources. Numerous media sources reported that violation of the Deval’s order would carry with it a potential $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail! What if your wife was pregnant and you needed to get her to the hospital? Guess you’re out of luck, huh? What if you have some other emergency? Too bad for you! Your exception to the rule wasn’t mentioned in Dictator Deval’s order.

Aside from the fact that there are countless legitimate reasons for people to be on the roadways during a major snowstorm — many of which couldn’t possibly be foreseen by an executive decree — this “Deval” governor has no business restricting the people’s right to travel. Yet, that is exactly what he did, which is completely unnecessary and should be considered unacceptable to the populace. He should be immediately recalled, and state legislative guidelines should be put into place, making it a criminal offense to use executive orders for purposes such as this. Encouraging people to stay off the roads is fine. Mandating it under threat of massive fines and imprisonment? Not in a free society.

On the heels of that outrage, we now learn that on February 20th, Tucson, Arizona Mayor Jonathan Rothschild — yes, that’s really his name — issuedResolution #22006 (pdf) which declares a state of emergency in the city of Tucson.

Section 1 “recognizes” the leadership of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base “to make the appropriate decisions when balancing National Security and community needs when it comes to their existing and future military mission and assignments.”

What “future military mission and assignments” might warrant the need for the military to make decisions and address community needs? What “National Security” crisis could be foreseen as to warrant a military base to operate independently of duly-elected government representatives? The resolution doesn’t say.

Section 2 specifies, “The various city officers are authorized and directed to perform all acts necessary or desirable to give effect to this Resolution.”

Presumably, this would mean that all city officers, including the local police chief and city police officers would now be under the ultimate authority of the military, who in turn answer to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces — the Oval Office usurper.

The Resolution further states in Section 3: “WHEREAS, it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety of the City of Tucson that this Resolution become immediately effective, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.” It then states that it was adopted by the mayor and council on February 20, 2013.

Prior to writing this article, this writer telephoned the Tucson mayor’s office to seek comment for this story. A lady answered the phone who said her name was Kimberly. When I questioned her about the purpose and intent of the resolution, she stated that she was “not at liberty to discuss” the matter.

Further pressing her on the fact that the resolution actually declares a state of emergency for the city of Tucson, I inquired as to what the nature of the emergency was that would warrant such a declaration. She indicated that there was no real emergency and that she “had been told” that the language was “standard language” used in all of their resolutions.

I then asked, “you mean every time the mayor signs a resolution, he declares a state of emergency?”

She then replied, “no” and proceeded to offer to take my name and contact information down, so that her communications director could call me back to explain.

As we send this article to be published, we are still awaiting that call.

 

---

Darren Weeks is a husband, a father, and a lover of America. A graduate of the Specs Howard School of Broadcast Arts in Southfield, Michigan, he has been a professional radio and television broadcaster since 1991, spending much of his career with local television news operations.

It was at his job, when flipping through satellite channels that he discovered patriot broadcasting, and his subsequent awakening ensued.

Weeks currently hosts Govern America every Saturday from 11AM to 2PM Eastern Time on the Republic Broadcasting Network.

E-Mail: [e-mail]

Web site: www.governamerica.com

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Feinstein: All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent ...

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 7, 2013

During the Senate Judiciary meeting today to markup a potpourri of bills designed to deny the American people their rights under the Second Amendment and disarm them, Senator Dianne Feinstein opposed an amendment to her so-called assault weapons ban legislation that would allow veterans to continue buying firearms the bill would outlaw.

Feinstein basically said all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped. In response to the amendment, she said the following:

…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect… and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States… that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

The comments are included in the C-Span video below.

Thankfully, Feinstein’s bill will most certainly be dead on arrival and – for now – the American people (with the exception of Americans unfortunate enough to live in New York state) will have their Second Amendment rights spared.

Feinstein’s remark, however, reveals a deep-seated mistrust and contempt for America’s veterans. It also reveals the fear by government of the revolutionary potential of veterans, a fear dutifully expressed by the Department of Homeland Security when it said returning veterans are “right wing extremists” who may challenge the government.

Incidentally, Feinstein is way off the mark. Although PTSD is a relatively new definition, soldiers returning from combat have experienced anxiety disorders since time immemorial. It is nothing new. She is merely exploiting a modern psychology term in order to add substance to her argument that veterans are insane and as such must have their Second Amendment rights nullified.

____________________________________________________________

“RESISTANCE TO INSANE GOVERNANCE”

from New York State Tea Party Groups

Map of New York State in 1777 (Wikipedia), just after the American Revolution

(Mar. 7, 2013) — NYS Governor Cuomo drew a line in the sand by arrogantly cramming the Safe Act (gun control) through the NY legislature. Spineless lawmakers obeyed their ruler and passed what they knew was an unconstitutional law. The people of New York quickly met Cuomo’s challenge and began mobilizing resistance to insane governance.

Within days – on Jan 19 huge crowds showed up in Albany and Buffalo with deafening roars of objection (over 7,000 in total). On February 12 another large, loosely connected group of New Yorkers returned to Albany accompanied by noteworthy Speakers from Texas, Arkansas, Arizona, Montana and led by outspoken Carl Paladino from Buffalo leading the chants of “we will not comply”, Repeal Repeal”. “Impeach Cuomo” and other loud cries of discontent. Follow by a statement from Paladino, “We will return”.

Return is what New Yorkers did – with the largest gathering in Albany history. They showed up on the gray, rainy, cold Thursday of February 28. The buses, registered by Albany officials numbered 187, carried 9,200 allied New Yorkers. Bus passengers were a mere 40% estimated total. Do the math – that would put the total to 23,000. That makes 3 times in 40 days the determined New Yorkers showed up at Cuomo’s doorstep. This time; the people’s voice was allied by 30 NY Senators and Assemblymen calling out chants for Repeal the Safe Act and dissatisfaction with Cuomo.

Will the rebellion continue? The protesters vigorously chant, “We will not quit. We will not back-down. We will continue until the insane UnSafe Act is banished from society”. They are proving it with continuous protests in many cities and local town halls throughout the state. They pledge to return again and again – eventually marching with 100,000 New Yorkers to Cuomo’s Albany doorstep.

What you have just read are the true facts – not the story the media has ignored and portrayed. Here is a challenge to all media: Do your duty – get it right. Tell society the real news story. Stop being as corrupt as the weak politicians you worship. Here’s a note of credence to so called “journalists” of the no credibility “mainstream”; Brain-washing is a disease. It is curable by large doses of truth and commonsense.

To substantiate the statements contained herein and to break the newsworthy subject news – do some interviews. Start with:

John Wallace (OathKeepers)

Constitutionalist Bob Schulz

NY Assemblyman Steve Katz

NY Senator Bill Nojay

Organizer Gary L. Perry

Businessman Carl Paladino

Legislator Deb Busch

Talk Show Host Melody Burns

Poughkeepsie Tom Sipos

Bus coordinator Denver Jones
Al Belardinelli March 2,2013
Universal Publishing is hereby granted

—————————–

Additional news on the New York State SAFE Act:

This just in at TTAG command central: the New York Supreme Court has stated that they will issue an injunction against the new SAFE Act on April 29th—unless the state can prove that the law is constitutional. This puts the burden of proof on the state of New York to show the Act is legal under the newly re-affirmed provisions of the Second Amendment, which is impossible. From WKTV . . .

The Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent gun laws said that Wednesday was “monumental,” as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional.

New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.

Bear in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that firearms “in common usage” cannot be restricted. And since the NY SAFE Act’s entire purpose is to restrict ownership of the single most popular firearm in the United States, there’s no way they can make a case that their law complies with the Second Amendment. If this injunction is upheld, then it opens the door for New Yorkers to challenge the standing “assault weapons” ban and other gun laws as well.

NY Supreme Court Considers SAFE Act Injunction | The Truth About Gu...

New York judge takes gun suit | The Poughkeepsie Journal | poughkee...

———————–

Related Groups:

Second Amendment Coalition of Western New York

Conservative Party of New York State

New York State NRA Rally, February 28, 2013

© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

---

Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com

URL to article: http://www.thepostemail.com/2013/03/07/news-release-shot-heard-arou...

___________________________________________________________________

Troops Deployed Ahead of Economic Collapse & Gun Confiscation

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
March 5, 2013

The economic collapse, and ensuing civil unrest is coming – or so we’ve been told. Why else would Homeland Security buy up more than 2 billion bullets, purchase more than 2700 tanks and stock pile weaponry all while government white papers outline preparations for a martial law containment of society?

What is the Federal government preparing for?:
Feds Buy Two Billion Rounds of Ammunition
Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo?
Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 ...
Army ‘Strategic Shock’ Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U....
Detention Camp Order Follows Preparations For Civil Unrest
HR 646: U.S. Preparing for Civil Unrest
Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America
Civil Disturbance Operations (April 2006) [PDF]
U.S. Army Purchases Riot Gear As Fears Over Civil Unrest Grow
Federal Solicitation: 84–Riot Gear Solicitation Number: 0010165648 ...
Is DHS Preparing for Civil Unrest with Massive Ammo Order?
Kentucky Guardsmen prepare for this weekend’s Derby
The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Person...
Washington Post: 20,000 More U.S. Troops To Be Deployed For “Domest...
Unrest Caused by Bad Economy May Require Military Action, Report Says
Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April
FM 3-29.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations
U.S. Army Military Police School Civil Disturbance Operations Course
Washington on the Brazos Historic Site
Command and Control: Command and Control of Military Forces in the ...
Governors Lose in Power Struggle Over National Guard
National Guard of the United States
New Jersey Contracted RFID Evacuee Tracking Tech Just Days Before S...
Radiant RFID
TXSG Flies High With Austin Kite Festival

Ahead of that breakdown of society, Washington and the powers that control it have deployed troops across America to train for domestic operation and acclimate the public to their presence. The friendlies, engaging in benign and innocuous activities, will foster trust among the people and let down their guard when things go dark later. It is classic psyops at work.

In that context, we see an acceleration of National Guard and regular Army troops used at public sporting events, in crowd control at festivals and operating with police in law enforcement checkpoints, all in violation of Posse Comitatus. Small examples of this have been occurring regularly in Texas, with a National or State Guard presence at kite festivals, Texas Independence celebrations and other public events.

For more on the presence of guard units controlling bus traffic at the Austin Kite Festival, read my earlier article: Military Patrol Austin Kite Festival in Martial Law Prep.

This article was posted: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 8:50 pm

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Gun Owners of America

Senate “Deal” Would Impose Even More Gun Bans Gifts, gun raffles and multiple sales of guns would be effectively banned   Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up four bills arising out of the Newtown tragedy:   * The Feinstein bill — which would ban millions of shotguns, rifles, handguns and magazines that Americans can legally own -- but which will probably die on the Senate floor.   * The universal gun registry — which may also die on the Senate floor — unless a last-minute deal with Sen. Tom Coburn brings it to life.   * Legislation by Barbara Boxer, which throws away $100,000,000 on school safety studies, but doesn’t immediately mention guns.   * And, currently the biggest danger, the Leahy-Gillibrand-Kirk bill, which has ominously been labeled a “gun trafficking” bill.   In regard to this latter piece of legislation (S. 443), the bill is being sold inside the Beltway as a bipartisan “compromise” because anti-gun Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) is a cosponsor of it.   But S. 443 would dramatically threaten to put gun owners in jail with horrendously long sentences for the most minor of infractions.   Essentially, the bill would impose a 15-year prison sentence for “negligent multiple sales by a dealer,” “negligent gifting” or “negligent raffling.”        Increasingly, there are more and more individuals who are “prohibited persons” for non-violent reasons — for instance, they smoke marijuana or they are military veterans suffering from maladies such as PTSD.    But if S. 443 is passed, any person who sells to such prohibited persons two or more firearms ... or gives them a firearm as a gift ... or raffles a firearm (where they are the recipient) ... does so only at the considerable risk of spending 15 years in a federal penitentiary.     You don’t need to know the person is a prohibited person under either example.  Nor does the recipient need to know they’re a prohibited person.    In fact, you don’t need to do anything more than plan (“conspire”) to transfer the gun.  In addition, the recipient doesn’t need to be on the NICS list to be a prohibited person.      Not only that, under section 4 of the bill, if you even “intend” to sell a firearm to a person who turns out to be a marijuana smoker — or one of the prohibited military veterans suffering from PTSD — you become a prohibited person yourself.    Go here to read the entire analysis of S. 443.   When all is said and done, this bipartisan “compromise” is as bad as the Feinstein gun ban (S. 150).     ACTION:  Click here to demand that your U.S. Senators oppose the Leahy-Gilli...

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Guns for Neighbors: The Ultimate Neighborhood Watch Program

by Eric Rauch

In a short essay written by former Navy SEAL and apocalyptic novelist Matthew Bracken entitled “Arm Thy Neighbor,” it is recommended that homeowners concerned about self-defense and a potential collapsing economy consider buying a few extra guns and ammunition to pass around the neighborhood when the time comes. Bracken openly admits that his advice may not be appreciated by all: “I can hear you saying, ‘What is Bracken talking about? If that foolish grasshopper of a neighbor didn’t bother about his security when guns were readily available, why should I worry about him now? Besides, he may even be an anti-gun liberal, so the hell with him!’” Despite negative comments and naysayers, Bracken makes some good points that should be diligently thought over.

First, Bracken says, former anti-gun liberals will quickly change their tune when the war for survival comes to their doorstep.

When violence explodes during an economic collapse, millions of new conservatives will be created from former left-wingers. And besides philosophically anti-gun liberals, many folks simply grow up in families where guns are not present and reach adulthood having never touched a firearm. But no matter why they don’t own firearms, when the ultra-violence breaks out your neighbors down the street will deserve a way to defend themselves from criminal predation. Simple charity, Christian or otherwise, suggests that we should not leave the elderly couple, the widow or the single mom with young children defenseless against evildoers bent on rape, robbery or murder.

Second, Bracken makes the practical point that a gun and some ammo given out in advance with a sufficient amount of training will make you appear as a trusted leader when and if things get bad. He writes: “Training a non-shooter in the safe operation of firearms also shows your own overall knowledge of security issues. This demonstrated firearms proficiency will stand you in good stead when your leadership skills and tactical knowledge may benefit your overall neighborhood security posture.”

Third, more guns mean multiple fields of fire. Once looters and thieves realize that many homes in a neighborhood are in possession of firearms, ammo, and the willingness to use them, the word will get around. Bracken says: “Consider why tiny Switzerland has never been invaded by its much more powerful and often bellicose neighbors. It’s not because of the Alps. It’s because the Swiss have a strong tradition of armed self-defense at every level.”

Finally, arming your neighbors can help to “provide you with a critical early warning of imminent danger when [a neighbor] fires it in self-defense.” This is a key tactical point that should not be taken lightly. “Forewarned is forearmed,” Bracken says, “even if the warning is a rapid series of pistol shots heard from up the street at oh-dark-thirty.” Either way, he says, it would obviously be preferable “to hear defiant shots than helpless screams.”

Bracken’s advice is certainly not without its critics, many of which seem to think that his essay is naïve. Perhaps, but what he says makes good sense and should certainly be thought over before being completely dismissed. If the bottom falls out and mass chaos ensues, it will definitely be better to be armed with your neighbors than to be armed without them.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/02/guns-for-neighbors-the-ultimate...

____________________________________________________________________

Dad Shoots and Kills 2 Armed Thugs to Protect His Family

posted on February 28, 2013 by Philip Hodges

We just ran a story about a 21-year-old who shot and killed 1 out of 3 intruders in his Texas home which saved his parents’ life. These kinds of events probably happen all the time, but we rarely hear about them in the mainstream media. They intentionally leave them out so that their viewers are left with a skewed version of reality that gives the impression that all we have is a bunch of armed criminals committing violent crimes against defenseless people. And their focus is not so much on the criminal, but on the gun. They try to scare their audience with pictures of the gun that was used, the size of the magazine and how much ammo he had. They might even throw in a picture of the others guns he had in his possession just because.

All we hear are the stories of murder, kidnapping, rape, child molestation, robbery, etc. And the media especially love it when the victim of one of these crimes happens to be black, and the criminal happens to be white. Then they get to talk nonstop about racism. But they wouldn’t dare even mention the crime if it happened to be black-on-white violence. Because that actually wouldn’t be called violence; it would be called slave reparations.

They don’t want to mention the good stories because then their viewers might get the sense that a gun is not always a murder weapon. It can be an effective and vital tool for self-defense.

Like this recent case in Virginia. Three armed criminals broke into a family’s home in the middle of the night:

 “The incident happened around 3:30 in the morning when the trio kicked in the front door. The young father told the local CBS affiliate that ‘it sounded like a car running into the side of the house.’ The crash woke him and his two-year old son, who was sleeping next to him, up. The father then grabbed his gun, which was located nearby, and when he saw the armed intruders, opened fire.”

The 25-year-old dad shot and killed 2 of the 3 intruders, and the third bolted out the door. The man then called 911, and the police have been trying to find the third man, but have been unable to locate him. Now, since the man wasn’t able to kill the third criminal, he and his family are going to move because they don’t want the survivor coming after them again.

There’s nothing wrong with the mainstream media publicizing murders and rapes. Citizens should be aware of those crimes. But they should also publicize far and wide these types of situations where the victim was able to defend himself and bring justice to the criminal.

Criminals watch the news too. If the mainstream media publicized stories like these on a regular basis, criminals would see them and maybe think twice about committing crimes. They’re only going to commit crimes if they think their victims are defenseless. If all they saw on the news were cases of attempted armed robbery, attempted murder or attempted rape, and they were all thwarted by gun owners who also shot and killed the thugs, I think criminals would try to find a more honorable profession. Either that or just find the nearest gun-free zone.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/02/dad-shoots-and-kills-2-armed-th...

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

There has been a paradigm shift in Washington and all our present congressmen and women know it.

Ever since Obamacare passed as Nancy Pelosi warned us, "we have to pass the bill before we tell you what's in it" ALL legislation, including the current GUN BAN legislation is heading for a vote even before the language is readable OR like the Obamacare debacle, before it's totally written.

The Leahy bill S. 54 is one of those "New Paradigm: pieces where the language keeps changing as the public becomes aware of how it affects themselves and their relationship to the second amendment. The democrats will try to keep ahead of public scrutiny and go secret behind closed doors if they have to. And what about our system of checks and balances??? You mean, where the president threatens to VETO legislation if it isn't "legal"? Obama isn't about to veto or even discuss something preordained by the liberal progressive democrat machine to become law of the land. And if you think our "Supreme" court is about to overturn anything this congress passes, remember what they did when Obamacare came before them . . . .  nothin!

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Gun Owners of America

Smoke a Joint, Get an ObamaPass Sell a gun to someone who smokes a joint, get 20 years in jail   It’s Looney Toons on Capitol Hill.   Everyone’s heard about the “red herring” Feinstein Gun Ban, which “red state Democrats” will vote down in order to pretend they’re “pro-gun.”   But the bigger danger is that Obama will sign “non-controversial” gun control which is just as dangerous, but no one but us is talking about.   Take the gun licensure bill which anti-gunners are trying to dub the “gun trafficking bill.”  In the Senate, the bill is S. 54, and was introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) -- although it appears that it could have been drafted by an intern.   GOOFBALL PROVISION #1:  The bill would impose a 20-year prison term if you planned (“conspired”) to purchase a firearm in order to give or raffle it to a person who, unbeknownst to you, is a “prohibited person.”   Who is a prohibited person?    Well, there are the 150,000 law-abiding veterans who are “prohibited persons” –- for no other reason than that a psychiatrist appointed a fiduciary to oversee their financial affairs.    But probably the biggest category of “prohibited persons” is persons who smoke marijuana.  Under 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) and (g)(3), you cannot possess a firearm in America if you are “an unlawful user of ... any controlled substance...”   In over a dozen states, marijuana has been wholly or partly legalized under STATE law.    It doesn’t matter ... if you even think about selling or raffling a gun to this expanding class of persons, you can go to prison for 20 years under S. 54.   GOOFBALL PROVISION #2:  The bill would make you a federal “prohibited person” if you are prohibited from owning a gun under “State or local law.”   What does that even mean?   In places like New York and Chicago, everyone is prohibited from owning a firearm without a license.  Does that mean that everyone in these jurisdictions is a federal “prohibited person” under S. 54?    What if someone applies for a license and is found not to have a need to possess one?  Under the slip-shod language of the Leahy bill, these individuals would probably become federal “prohibited persons” because the bill denies any person from owning a firearm if they are “prohibited by STATE OR LOCAL LAW from possessing, receiving, selling, shipping, transporting, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the firearm or ammunition.” (S. 54, Section 5.)   Oh, incidentally, under the Veterans Disarmament Act, states are required to send the names of 95% of their prohibited persons to the FBI’s NICS system -– or lose federal funding.    So now you will have millions of law-abiding citizens -- living in places like New York City and Chicago -- who have their names placed in the NICS system.  And the Leahy bill doesn’t address some very important questions related to their status as gun owners.    How will these banned citizens get their names cleared? The federal government has for years continued enforcing the Schumer amendment which defunds the ability of the ATF to restore the rights of non-violent prohibited persons. Will New Yorkers and Chicagoans get their gun rights restored after they move away from the localities that banned them from owning guns and which turned them into prohibited persons?   Again, the bill doesn’t say.  But we could expect that a few years from now, a future anti-gun President could use the language in S. 54 to impose a federal licensure requirement on these persons -- as part of a new 23-point Executive Action memo -- and make non-licensees federal prohibited persons (with all that that implies).   Maybe –- just maybe -– the courts would save us from the implications of Leahy’s goofball language.   But answer us this:  Why do anti-gun senators and representatives continue to push language which they know is fatally flawed –- just so they can say they “broke the back of the gun lobby”?    The solution is clear:  Senators –- if they are pro-gun -– MUST vote against a “motion to proceed” to any of this goofball legislation.  That is, they must vote to keep ALL gun control from even being considered on the Senate floor.   ACTION:  Click here to contact your Senators.  Urge him to vote against any motion to proceed to goofball anti-gun bills like S. 54.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

from Wayne Mercier-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YkOoxFDWGfk