Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

On Gun Control, The Emperor Has No Clothes

February 27, 2013 by  

On Gun Control, The Emperor Has No Clothes
SPECIAL

Earlier this month, the National Rifle Association leaked a furtively obtained internal Justice Department memo in which a leading official in the Administration of President Barack Obama mused that a ban on so-called assault weapons and large ammunition magazines coupled with a more stringent background check system would have no impact in reducing the availability of certain firearms.

Instead, the official opined, a national gun registration and confiscation system would have to be put into place to eliminate the guns the Obama Administration and certain lawmakers are hell bent to ban.

If the Presidential Administration’s goal is to ban certain firearms incrementally without making obvious that the elimination of all 2nd Amendment rights is the endgame, the memo is damning in its honesty. In a nutshell, the tone is this: “Well, we could actually cut the number of gun murders by simply enforcing existing gun laws, but if you guys want to ban them, here’s how.”

From the memo:

Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings.

The memo goes on to suggest that gun buybacks, magazine bans, background checks, assault weapon bans and the development of “smart guns” are all really fatuous things to suggest if you are a top government official serious about cutting down on gun violence.

A recent Syracuse University study backs the Justice memo’s initial assertion that gun crime would be cut drastically if existing gun laws were simply enforced. According to that report, since Obama took office, the number of gun crime prosecutions in the Nation has dropped significantly. By 2011, there were 40 percent fewer gun-related prosecutions than when they peaked in 2004 under President George W. Bush.

That study prompted members of the House Judiciary GOP to band together and sign a letter criticizing the President that has made such a policy plank of gun control for his Administrations poor record on gun crime. The letter was sent to Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Besides pointing out the overall low number of gun crime prosecutions, the GOP lawmakers lambasted Administration officials for failing to place high value on prosecution of paperwork violations from Federally licensed firearms dealers:

In 2010, there were 76,142 [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] denials screened by the ATF’s Denial Enforcement and NICS Intelligence (DENI) Branch. Of those screened, 4,732 denials were referred to field offices for investigation. However, only 62 prosecutions resulted from these actions,” the letter says. “A prosecution rate this low is not indicative of a Department of Justice that takes the act of illegally attempting to acquire a firearm seriously.

The lawmakers asked Holder to provide records of Justice prosecutions for Federal firearms violations over the past 11 years.

In another recent open letter to the President, Columbine survivor Evan Todd similarly criticized the Administration for gun prosecution failings:

Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

Todd also noted that it was during the initial assault weapons ban that the Columbine massacre occurred.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “On Gun Control, The Emperor Has No Clothes”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Vicki

    THe OP writes:
    “f the Presidential Administration’s goal is to ban certain firearms incrementally without making obvious that the elimination of all 2nd Amendment rights is the endgame…”

    That is why the founders wrote “…Shall NOT be INFRINGED”. They knew quite well about incremental-ism.

    • Bob Z

      Apparently that is not going to be enough….

      • http://Arkybill.cominprogress Bill Henry

        We don’t yet know what the proposal will be, but the Second Amendment is in force whatever the proposal may be. It is one sentence that says it all, and any proposal will be a violation of the Second Amendment. By its very being in the Constitution Bill of Rights make it supreme law of the land. If they want to do away with the Second Amendment let them repeal it. They will not do that because of the political crisis it will cause. As it stands the Second Amendment is inviolable meaning that any infringement on it cannot be legal.
        Non Sibi Sed Patriae

      • Vicki

        Bill Henry says:
        “As it stands the Second Amendment is inviolable meaning that any infringement on it cannot be legal.”

        Lets talk NFA 1934. How about GCA 1968. Whatever the Brady bill is. Gun-Free Zones. Thats a whole lot of infringement and we haven’t even started to look at state and local laws.

    • jopa

      Vicki; The key words to the 2nd amendment are a “Well Regulated” which means there has to be rules and “regulations” in order to protect the American citizen from gun-owners gone wild so to speak.I am sure the term well regulate was also placed in the amendment to help with the issues of the future or what we are seeing today.Do not take our rights away, we want regulation now!!

      • shootnbull

        the phrase “well regulated” when taken in the historical context, means functioning, and has nothing to do with laws or legislation

      • momo

        It also says “shall not be infringed.”

      • Vigilant

        jopa’s understanding of the English language, as with most public-schooled fools, is rudimentary and flawed.

        The Amendment says, “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 construction of the sentence itself is flawed in that it is incomplete. “A well regulated Militia” is NOT the subject of the sentence, the subject is “the right.” The proper English would be “Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State…etc.”

        Other prepositions in lieu of “since” would be after all, as, by reason of, considering, for, forasmuch as, in consideration of, in view of, inasmuch as, insomuch as, on account of, seeing that, etc.

        Prepositional phrases NEVER define the subject, verb or object of a sentence, and the removal of prepositional phrases does NOT change the meaning of the sentence.

        If you remove ALL prepositional phrases from the 2nd Amendment, you are left with “The right shall not be infringed.”

        So, jopa me boy, the key words to the 2nd amendment are NOT “a Well Regulated.” You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own “facts.” Take an English course.

        • US Army (retired)

          “The right to bear arms is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.” — George Mason

          Then there are politicians who insist in taking our Constitution out of context of time and original meaning. — Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

          Once again, James Madison warned us against this. “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

          Amen Vigilant

      • Average Joe

        jopa,

        Obviously, the English language and proper use of the English language is not your strong suit. So, I’ll allow one of the foremost authorities on the English language explain grammer to you….

        As passed by the Congress:

        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 statement: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,”
        is often misunderstood to mean that you need to be in a militia in order to own firearms. Well, point in-fact, every male of draft age who is of sound body and mind is considered a member of the “unorganized militia” according to the law, but that’s irrelevant, because the second statement:
        “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
        is the important part. This statement is the crux of the amendment and ensures that the individual right to bear arms is not infringed upon. Now, the way this sentence is constructed (in total), the right of the people allows for the well-regulated militia. The militia is a byproduct of the right to bear arms, not a prerequisite. Here is the grammatical break down from the prof:
        [ Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ” militia,” which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
        In reply to your numbered questions:
        [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
        [ Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
        [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
        [ Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
        [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
        [ Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
        [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
        [ Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
        [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase " well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
        [ Copperud:] (5) The phrase means “subject to regulations of a superior authority”; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
        [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
        [ Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
        [Schulman:] As a “scientific control” on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
        “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
        My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
        (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
        (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books” only to “a well-educated electorate” – for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
        [ Copperud:] (1) Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
        (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

        Got it? Good.

        Roy Herman Copperud, a professor of journalism and an authority on the use of the English language.

        AJ

      • TML

        That is some serious fudging of the meaning of the Amendment, that not even the Supreme Court agreed with in 2008… you can’t just make things up as you go along Jopa

        Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, “The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867)”

        Besides, “well-regulated” does not mean, “rules and regulations in order to protect the American citizen from gun-owners gone wild so to speak”… it does not mean “to subject to rules or restrictions, to adjust by rule or method, to govern” in this context.

        Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, “In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

        “On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson

        One of many examples:
        Federalist Paper #29 – “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” – Alexander Hamilton

        “Well-regulated” clearly refers to how well the militia functions and how well trained, or well-armed are the militia members. It does not mean, “to subject to rules or restrictions, to adjust by rule or method, to govern”

      • TML

        , especially as it pertains to what firearms are allowed or available to them.

      • eddie47d

        Potato Pataato! We do have a well regulated militia and it morphed into the US military which is well regulated to defend America. Our free state is being well secured and taken care of thank you. Yes our military is the people and their right to bear arms shouldn’t be infringed on in defense of our nation.

      • Average Joe

        That’s nice eddie…take two more 500 mg. ofThorazine and call us in the morning…..

        AJ

      • Vigilant

        Eddie, study your history. The oldest military organization in the U.S., the National Guard, traces its roots to the Colonial militiamen who fought at Lexington and Concord, “the shot heard ’round the world” that began the American Revolution.

        The militia never morphed into either the standing regular Army or the Reserves.

        Think if the idiocy of your contention: the Bill of Rights was added to preserve INDIVIDUAL and states’ rights against encroachment by the Federal government. IN NO WAY did the 2nd Amendment preserve any rights of the Federal standing Army.

        “Yes our military is the people and their right to bear arms shouldn’t be infringed on in defense of our nation.” Try to take that to the Supreme Court and see how far that gets you.

        Snatching at straws doesn’t strengthen your argument, eddie. If you’re too lazy to read the above comments by the Founders and experts, then please don’t make things up as you go along.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Potato Pataato!”

        Misspelling does not change the meaning.

        - eddie47d: “We do have a well regulated militia and it morphed into the US military which is well regulated to defend America.

        Eddie has been told this before and ignores us but for the new reader
        _______________________________________
        10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code – Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b) The classes of the militia are –
        —- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and —- (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
        ______________________________________
        http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311#sthash.z1rIpUEe.dpuf
        This is STILL the law. US Army etc not listed.

        The US Military that eddie47d refers to is more like the standing army that our founders warned us of. Especially after obama gets rid of those who will not fire on American citizens.

        - eddie47d: “Our free state is being well secured and taken care of thank you.”

        You only say that cause you don’t live in southern Arizona.

        - eddie47d: “Yes our military is the people and their right to bear arms shouldn’t be infringed on in defense of our nation.”

        You just said that OUR right to keep and bear arms should NOT be infringed. ( ….our military is the people… is exactly what the founders, US Code above and we have been saying.)

        Glad to see you are beginning to understand that

        ~300 Million Americans should NOT be punished for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW

      • JeffH

        Vigilant, you must realize that the extent of jopa’s education was from reading the Globe, The National Enquirer and watching TMZ on MTV.

      • vicki

        jopa says:
        “Vicki; The key words to the 2nd amendment are a “Well Regulated” which means there has to be rules and “regulations” in order to protect the American citizen from gun-owners gone wild so to speak.”

        The key words are “…shall NOT be infringed.” But you new that. The best protection from gun-owners gone wild is gun owners who have not.

  • Warrior

    As we have found out with almost all gubmint actions in the past, none were of the “comprehensive” nature. Up to now, it seems, those past legislators were just “tinkering around the edges”. Anyone else notice that the gubmint is “finally” getting serious about “comprehensive immigration reform”, “comprehensive tax code reform”, “comprehensive energy plan”, “comprehensive gun legislation”, “comprehensive middle east policy” and the list goes on and on and on. In fact, the “sequester” proves the point that ALL activities perform by the gubmint have to be “comprehensive” in nature or they just will not be successful. So mr campaigner n chief, it has become abundantly clear that you need to surround yourself with more “comprehensive” stinkers….err Thinkers!

  • US Army (retired)

    “What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that therre can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.” — Lysander Spooner circa 1880

    The legislative body called The Congress of the United States of America wants to convince us that it can tell us what we may, and may not own.

    They DON’T rule us.
    They DON’T give us rights.
    We GRANT them power.
    They DON’T make us safe.
    We PAY to protect them.
    They DON’T make us free.
    We’re free already.
    And as long as we have the Second Amendment, we always will be.
    We are America and our politicians are only as powerful as, WE, THE PEOPLE, ALLOW them to be.

    • The GLB

      If one pays the illegal Federal income tax, then one is not free.

      To be a slave is to not own 100% of the fruits of one’s labors.

    • Vicki

      US Army (retired) writes:
      “”The legislative body called The Congress of the United States of America wants to convince us that it can tell us what we may, and may not own. ”

      And it HAS been telling us for more than 50 years. Tyep of lightbulbs and type of cars are just recent examples.

      For a TRULY free people the possession of ANYTHING obtained without force or fraud can NOT be illegal.

  • RivahMitch

    The time is fast approaching. Those who are not willing to kill and die to defend their right will lose them, and deservedly so. Semper Fi!

  • Gene Moore

    what dont they get.Iwill not disarm dont care what new laws come up with.Take it form my cold dead fingers.Ibelive its time for war the Gov.is not the boss here we are.

  • eddie47d

    I wouldn’t take the word from anyone in the NRA either. Their agenda has been obvious for the last 30 years or more. Write the state laws and “force” legislators to accept them. Vote for our bills or face the consequences at the polls. Buy million dollar ads and lie through their teeth. That 200 million dollar budget of theirs comes in handy and they are the big league in lobbying. I love when everyone harps about enforcing the existing laws when it is the NRA that goes into each state and cannibalizes those same laws . That makes them weak and worthless. They win both ways and the gun industry flourishes. They make it so the laws CAN’T be enforced and the gun runners are smiling! The loopholes are as wide as the Mississippi and you all give a high five.

    • eddie47d

      By the way I have always been against the Fast and Furious operation so none of this the government is bad so so we can be bad too crap! No more gun running from anyone! Close the loopholes and enforce the laws and get those blocking the laws out of the way!

    • Vigilant

      Eddie, if you won’t take the word of NRA officials, how ‘bout taking the word of the Founders? There are several quotations above from which to choose.

    • Vigilant

      “Write the state laws and “force” legislators to accept them. Vote for our bills or face the consequences at the polls. Buy million dollar ads and lie through their teeth. That 200 million dollar budget of theirs comes in handy and they are the big league in lobbying.”

      On that basis, eddie, you should reject Obamacare in toto. Whom do you think wrote that monster? Hint: it wasn’t written by Congress.

      • eddie47d

        Considering the private insurers ( UHC,Aetna ,etc) kept their gravy train I bet they had a heavy hand in it. I don’t remember voting in any lobbyist on anyone’s team.

      • Dennis48e

        ““Write the state laws and “force” legislators to accept them. Vote for our bills or face the consequences at the polls. Buy million dollar ads and lie through their teeth. That 200 million dollar budget of theirs comes in handy and they are the big league in lobbying.”

        Thats eddie’s new catch phrase. He will use it ad naseum for a while then after even he gets sick of it he will find a new one. Of course like all his previous catch phrases he has nothing to back it up other than his untrustworthy say so.

    • Vicki

      Eddie47d writes:
      “The loopholes are as wide as the Mississippi and you all give a high five.”

      Which loopholes would those be eddie? Name 3 (cause I know you are going to say gunshow loophole so I want you to be creative and invent more)

    • JeffH

      Yeah, that evil NRA you say? Well, they did cannibalize the gun bans in DC, Chicago and LA or was it that they stood up for the 2nd Amendment in each case and ruined the anti-constitutional laws that were in place.

      Like Vicki asked, name 3 laws…and the gunshow loophole isn’t a reality anyway…that’s just another meaningless progressive
      anti-gun talking point.

      FYI..has anybody seen this video where Ole Joe Biden tell women to get a 12 gauge dbl barrel and go out on the back deck/porch and fire off a couple of rounds?

      ENJOY! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A0IVSGctQIg#!

  • Grandpa frog

    Of the 62 prosecutions, how many convictions? What type of jail sentences?

    Prime example of “the dog don’t hunt”.

    • SamWalton

      Explain why you think you find it necessary to have more than a single shot or a bolt action gun or even a double barrel super joe gun. I would like to hear the answer esp after DHS insecurity, ordered 7000 full auto ar-15 self defense guns to keep us safe.

      • http://aol CommonSense4America

        Why do you get to say for me what is necessary? I will decide for myself what I think is necessary. And BTW, it is a “Bill of Rights” not a “Bill of Needs”.

      • http://aol CommonSense4America

        I missed this one,,,,are they defense weapons OR are they assault rifles? I guess it’s like Terrorist or Patriot,,,depends on which side you are on. Go figure.

      • US Army (retired)

        A right is something you are born with, and something you will die with. A privilege is something granted to you by the state, and may be revoked at any time. The Bill of Rights are definitions of natural immunities to government interference. The only clear understanding of the right to keep and bear arms is that it “shall not be infringed.”

      • US Army (retired)

        Guns are a TOOL, they can be used unlawfully or lawfully. Politicians are more focused on CONTROLLING PEOPLE, the term gun control is misleading as it will not take the guns away from criminals, who do not obey the law, it only disarms the peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Thus PEOPLE CONTROL is achieved by making them unable to defend themselves from criminals or a tyrannical government.

      • Grandpa frog

        SamWalton

        1). During the Revolutionary War, the modern firearm was the musket (mainly the British Brown Bess). Today, the AR-15 or AK 74 is the modern equivalent of the musket. For the DHS, it should have automatic fire mode.

        Hopefully, you understand why the authors of the Constitution included the 2nd Amendment.

        2). I personally live where it would take the police at almost an hour to respond to a call for help. To as little as a threatening gang of three, my double-barrelled 12 ga shotgun doesn’t hold enough shells, and neither my .270 nor my bolt-actioneds .338 Magnum could pump out bullets fast enough to defend my family. But I could count on my wife’s support with her pump 16 ga. shotgun.

        Now that I’ve answered your question, do you know how many convictions were obtained from the 4,732 gun background denials for 2011? From the only 62 prosecutions?

      • Vicki

        SamWalton says:
        “Explain why you think you find it necessary to have more than a single shot or a bolt action gun or even a double barrel super joe gun.”

        I think you clearly answered your own question in your second sentance.

        - SamWalton: “I would like to hear the answer esp after DHS insecurity, ordered 7000 full auto ar-15 self defense guns to keep us safe.”

        However I will answer the way my grandfather did when I (foolishly) asked him.

        “How big is the mob?”

  • Medboy

    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?” – Patrick Henry

    “It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it” – George Washington

    The founders made their opinion clear enough that anyone with an education who supports gun control is knowingly going against their intent. I have much more respect for the opinions of George Washington and company than the likes of Feinstein and Bloomberg- Don’t bury your guns, bury those who come to take them! And one more sadly prophetic one-

    “The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.” – George Washington

    • US Army (retired)

      Our Founding Fathers knew that the real reason for the Second Amendment was to protect the rights secured by the other nine! It has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or target shooting. It has to do with the defense of our God-given rights! While we won’t convert some of the misguided die-hard leftists, the more we quote this statement, the more we can wake up the sleeping sheeple and bring them to our side.

      The Second Amendment exists to protect the other nine!

      Learn it, memorize it. Post it. In fact, ALL of the first ten amendments exist to put chains on the GOVERNMENT, not on the people!
      That includes the First Amendment and the so-called “establishment clause.” The 1st Amendment says “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” It doesn’t say “the people” are to be constrained. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have force of law; Thomas Jefferson’s private letters don’t, so the misapplication of his letter to the Danbury Baptists is not proper grounds for curtailing religion in public life and the teaching of certain fundamental morals, which is what we have abandoned.

      Our Bible tells us that in the last days there will be many false prophets, and there will be much tribulation. Keep your eye on the target. God is still in His heaven and still in charge.

      Remember the end of the story; we win eventually.

      • Sue K

        Isaiah says that the leaders will behave as children, and warns that grave consequences will befall them for misleading and cheating the people. Can’t happen fast enough for me. I think our problem is that we have way too many lawyers in Congress; all they know how to try for is to win, not to make decisions using logic and the wishes of the people. One thing really worries me. If so many dislike Obama and company, how in the living name of all that’s holy did he get re-elected? Those darned electronic voting machines that malfunction all the time? I refuse to use anything but a paper ballot since the electronic machine changed my vote twice, in the McCain/Obama presidential election. Word to the wise. . . .

  • ToughGuy1

    I say, you should remember Charlton Heston said, “My cold dead hands” NRA speech. This profound man bless his heart and soul shall I always treasure! (-Charlton Heston-”My Cold DEAD Hands” NRA speech – You Tube http://www.youtube.com.)

    • JimH

      Hi Tough Guy, I like my hands warm and living. The people who try to take guns away may feel the “hot” lead in their dead a$$.

  • FreedomFighter

    When Tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

    Totalitarian control is only possible in a disarmed society, as the Nazis and communists demonstrated in the twentieth century.

    This is not about Gun Control, its about control of the American people, this has happened many, many times in history, usually as a dictator or other totalitarian governmental system is implemented. The government fears and rightly so, the people don’t want to be treated like a collective of ants, enslaved with mandatory healthcare that opens the door to absolute physical control measures, silenced, disarmed, fed psychotropic compounds in the water that pacify, and with them as queens, and kings of a false utopia, very much a Dystopia. Mankind can come up with a better way to develop a society bound for the stars.

    Dont Register ever: fight for the 2nd

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • US Army (retired)

      I WILL NOT be fingerprinted for LEGALLY owning a gun!
      I WILL NOT have my picture taken for LEGALLY owning a gun!
      I WILL NOT register my LEGALLY owned guns!
      I WILL NOT surrender my LEGALLY owned guns
      This Vietnam vet says I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!!
      If the Government comes to take my guns ILLEGALLY, they will get them BULLETS FIRST!!!
      MOLON LABE!!!!!
      Live FREE or die!!!!!

      • Vicki

        How do you define legally owned? All of gun control tries to make owning illegal.

        My definition of legally owned is that you acquired it without force or fraud.

  • http://yahoo Don

    when do the people in the state of califonia finally realize that her royal majesty fienstien is into total power and do us a favor and vote he rights stealing a–{butt} out.

  • US Army (retired)

    A right is something you are born with, and something you will die with. A privilege is something granted to you by the state, and may be revoked at any time. The Bill of Rights are definitions of natural immunities to government interference. The only clear understanding of the right to keep and bear arms is that it “shall not be infringed.”

    “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.” -2nd Amendment

    Infringe – to violate, transgress, break or encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. (Merriam-Webster)

    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” -Patrick Henry

    “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” -Thomas Paine
    “The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams

    “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed; unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -The Federalist, No. 46, James Madison

    • chocopot

      Well stated. And 100% correct.

  • ibcamn

    This Obama regime is just plain lazy!all the white house is abuzz with the fact he isn’t doing the job,at all!we know he whines like a school girl when he has to practice speeches!(teleprompter)we know he vacations more than anybody,we know he’s played more golf than anyone!(even retirees wonder WTF!?)alls he dies is spend money that aint his and buy stuff he don’t need or use,makes bad investments too!we know now he don’t know what he’s doing,did he even finish any of his collage courses?where in his class did he graduate?did he?oh,..wait..thats right,were not suppose to know all that!!Obama’s not only a threat to the USA,he’s a joke!

    • http://gravatar.com/cbgard Carlucci

      Obama is simply yet another meat puppet who is in place to do the bidding of the elite ruling class. I’m sure they show these “elected” morons the Zapruder film on the Kennedy assassination before they take office. At the end of the film, they ask the meat puppet “Any questions?”

      If you want to know more, check out the History Channel’s excellent series “The Men Who Built America” http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america

  • Bob Timm

    We need a new revolution in this country. Our government has gotten to far reaching and our representatives, on both sides of the isle, are to into themselves and their power. The best interests of the people means nothing to them. We have lost our moral compass and unless we return to the values that built and made this country the greatest nation in history,we are doomed. The liberals with in congress and the Supreme court must be ousted if we have any hope of regaining the morality we once had in this nation.

    • Jana

      Obama using fake twitter accounts to pump up gun control

      From The Hill…

      A Texas Republican on Monday said President Obama’s gun control campaign is a fraud based on fake messages over Twitter.

      Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) accused Obama of trying to make support for his position look stronger than it really is by flooding Twitter with messages from people who don’t exist.

      “Obama’s anti-gun campaign is a fraud,” Stockman said. ”Obama’s supporters are panicking and willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if it means trying to defraud Congress,” he added. “I call upon the president to denounce this phony spam campaign.”

      Stockman said that in response to Obama’s call for people to tweet their congressman in support of gun control legislation, he received just 16 tweets. But he said all of these messages were identical, and that a closer look at them revealed that only six were from real people.

      “The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots,” his office said in a press release. As evidence, he said these 10 tweets use default graphics and names, and have not engaged in any interaction with other people. Two of the tweets were sent at nearly the same time, and both follow just one person: Brad Schenck, Obama’s former digital strategist.

  • Howard C

    Before guns it was swords. The shillelagh came about because the Irish who were under British rule were not permitted to own swords. Peasents were not permitted to own swords only royalty and soldiers. Swords were also so expensive that had they been permitted to own them they would not be able to afford them. Ninja same about in Japan to combat Samurai and they turned farming tools into weapons. Ninjas were forced to use the cover of night and ambush attacks because face to face they stood no chance against the heavily armored samurai (who were also lower classes of royalty).

  • Vigilant

    This just in: please watch it through to the end!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafkVM-jnbE&feature=player_embedded

    • Average Joe

      Thank you for that! way too funny….. :)

  • http://clear.net Xmil-man

    Why is it that every time that I get on this site that all of you get stuck on one thing and can’t seem to get off that one subject ? We all know that Obama wants to write his own constitution and make owning guns by citizens illegal. So what are the American people going to do about it ? Most of us older folks aren’t going to put up with the prince in the white house walking all over our rights. WE THE PEOPLE need to start a movement to get him and the other idiots out of office and take OUR COUNTRY BACK !!!!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.