Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: 50 of Bloomberg’s Mayors Quit After Gun Confiscation Plan Leaked

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    50 of Bloomberg’s Mayors Quit After Gun Confiscation Plan Leaked

    50 of Bloomberg’s Mayors Quit After Gun Confiscation Plan Leaked





    (by Adan Salazar) -- Nearly 50 mayors have jumped ship on former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” campaign over allegations that the group’s ultimate goal is outright gun confiscation, according to one former member.

    As reported, Poughkeepsie Mayor John Tkazyik published a statement in last week’s Poughkeepsie Journal coming clean about the group’s true intentions, total disarmament of law-abiding gun owners.

    “Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens,” Tkazyik said, confirming what many already suspected about the group.

    “Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did,” he also added.
    The fact that 50 mayors bailed in response to a concerted effort to undermine the Bill of Rights is certainly headline-worthy, but so far, unsurprisingly, few other media outlets have picked the story up.
    And Tkazyik isn’t the first to cast these allegations. In 2007, the mayor of Williamsport, Pa., also said she left after witnessing “dubious” attempts to subvert the Second Amendment. “I have learned that the coalition may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership, and that some actions on your behalf are dubious,” then-Williamsport Mayor Mary Wolf wrote in a letter to Bloomberg himself.
    And just last year, during a Mothers Demand Action rally (a gun control coalition which merged with MAIGin December 2013), Austin, Texas City Councilman Mike Martinez singled out a protestor carrying a “Stop the Gun Ban” sign and told him, “…there is no gun ban currently, but because of the work we’re doing here today, we will make your sign legitimate shortly, so you hang on to that.”
    News of the group’s traitorous crusade comes at a time when American gun owners are already wary of continual attempts to curtail firearm ownership. Since the Sandy Hook school shooting, the Obama administration has proposed legislation aimed at combating “gun violence,” including proposals that would require background checks for all gun sales; in effect, registration.
    American gun owners who know the history behind gun control are fearful that a federal gun registry will eventually lead to confiscation. Indeed, numerous articles have been published showing how, since 2007, roving law enforcement teams have been disarming Californians deemed “illegal” using a list of owners.
    However, in the face of blatant evidence, the director of MAIG, Mark Glaze, has boldly gone on to publicly deny that “nobody in California has come to take anyone’s guns.”
    The fact that groups like MAIG are to the point of openly bragging about their intentions doesn’t bode well for gun owners. It signifies the establishment is preparing to take grand strides to convince the American public of the “dangers” posed by guns. That means more contrived scenes of violence with guns at their center.
    The fact that Obama has repeatedly asserted his willingness to work around Congress to make things happen is also worrying. In his 2014 State of the Union speech he also mentioned that his administration would continue to address “gun violence,” and that he intends to “keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.”
    It should now be abundantly clear that any reassurances, given by known liars such as Obama or any of his anti-Second Amendment teams, are merely to placate gun owners into a state of pacification and complacency. However, the jig is now up and the curtain has been lifted.
    Overall, 50 mayors bailing on the group over its future plans shows a definite sea change in the way public servants are regarding citizens’ rights and the Second Amendment. However, it is simply incredible that more mayors, knowing the treasonous goals of the organization, have not abandoned ship.
    Here’s a list of mayors that are members of Bloomberg’s initiative.
    Read more via Infowars...

    http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines...on-plan-leaked



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Ron Paul Rewind: A Warning Against Arming the BLM…In 1997!

    April 26, 2014


    Ron Paul | Dr. Paul is a New York Times bestselling author and a twelve-term congressman from Texas who ran as a 2012 Republican Presidential candidate. He is author of The School Revolution: A New Answer for Our Broken Education System , Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property and End The Fed and other titles.


    Opinions from Liberty Crier contributors and members are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Liberty Crier.


    Speaking on the House of Representatives floor on September 17, 1997, then-Rep. Ron Paul warned of the “massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators.” Paul, the chairman and founder of RPI, proceeded to comment in his speech that, with the number of armed federal employees approaching 60,000, the Secretary of the Interior was pushing for even the Bureau of Land Management to be armed.

    With the continuing rise of SWAT over the following 26 years, the number of armed US government employees continued to grow. According to the bulletin Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008 of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, by September of 2008 “federal agencies employed approximately 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States,” with 255 of them working for BLM.

    We saw the United States government’s armed agents in action recently at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. We also saw them back off, at least for now, when confronted by armed protestors. Paul’s concluding sentences of his 1997 speech seem apropos:

    The gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact.



    Read here, from the Congressional Record, Paul’s complete speech:

    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, another Member severely criticized me on the House floor for declaring on C-SPAN that indeed many Americans justifiably feared their own government. This fear has come from the police state mentality that prompted Ruby Ridge, Waco and many other episodes of an errant Federal Government.

    Under the constitution, there was never meant to be a Federal police force. Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the Federal Government’s misdirected war on drugs, radical environmentalism, and the aggressive behavior of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the States where they have no legal authority. The sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local government by the majority of American citizens has permitted the army of bureaucrats to thrive.

    We have depended on government for so much for so long that we as people have become less vigilant of our liberties. As long as the government provides largesse for the majority, the special interest lobbyists will succeed in continuing the redistribution of welfare programs that occupies most of Congress’s legislative time.

    Wealth is limited, yet demands are unlimited. A welfare system inevitably diminishes production and shrinks the economic pie. As this occurs, anger among the competing special interests grows. While Congress and the people concentrate on material welfare and its equal redistribution, the principals of liberty are ignored, and freedom is undermined.

    More immediate, the enforcement of the interventionist state requires a growing army of bureaucrats. Since groups demanding special favors from the Federal Government must abuse the rights and property of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty, real resentment is directed at the agents who come to eat out our substance. The natural consequence is for the intruders to arm themselves to protect against angry victims of government intrusion.

    Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, the surge in the number of armed Federal bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new Federal cops were authorized to carry firearms. That takes the total up to nearly 60,000. Farah points out that these cops were not only in agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Even Bruce Babbitt, according to Farah, wants to arm the Bureau of Land Management. Farah logically asks, “When will the NEA have its armed art cops?” This is a dangerous trend.
    It is ironic that the proliferation of guns in the hands of the bureaucrats is pushed by the antigun fanatics who hate the second amendment and would disarm every law-abiding American citizen. Yes, we need gun control. We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then abolish the agencies. If government bureaucrats like guns that much, let them seek work with the NRA.

    Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants. Intimidation with government guns, the threat of imprisonment, and the fear of harassment by government agents puts fear into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current audit year for the IRS, the administration’s denial that the audit is related to the suit is suspect, to say the least.

    Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward the Federal Government, know the evidence exists that since the 1970′s both Republican and Democratic administrations have not hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits and regulatory harassment.

    Even though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty. The gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact.

    Source


    Read more at http://libertycrier.com/ron-paul-rew...HBTjD3ATQkv.99


    Trevor Lyman originally shared:


    "The gun in the hands of law abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government, guns in the hands of bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact."





    Last edited by kathyet2; 04-26-2014 at 12:41 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546


    Shared publicly - 9:31 AM




  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Firearm Applications Increase 380% - Overwhelm ATF Registration System

    Joshua Cook 2 hours ago


    Much to the chagrin of gun control advocates everywhere, a surge of firearm applications has overwhelmed the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    Between 2005 and 2013, firearms act-related applications skyrocketed by more than 380 percent to 200,000.

    According to the USA Today, the ATF said it was temporarily suspending parts of its computerized system to shore up capacity in part to process the required registration and transfer of National Firearms Act covered weapons, which also include silencers, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and some explosive devices.

    In an April 16 memo from ATF Deputy Assistant Director Marvin Richardson, the surge contributed to a 70,000-application backlog, requiring the ATF to hire 15 additional people and to reassign 15 existing employees to combat the backlog.

    "We have seen dramatic, unprecedented … growth in the firearms and ammunition industry as the direct result of consumer demand for our products in the last five years," the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry's trade association, said on its website. "Not surprisingly, growth has placed added demand on the (ATF's) Office of Enforcement Programs and Services. Today, the office simply does not have the funding or personnel it needs to serve the industry and, by extension, our customers."

    According to ATF records, a total of 512,790 machine guns were registered across the country in 2014, more than 571,000 silencers, 2.2 million so-called destructive devices, which include grenades and other explosives, 137,201 short-barreled rifles and 131,951 short-barreled shotguns.
    The automated system launched last year and grew from 673 users last year to 10,000 today.

    Source
    Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
    You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/fi...s2VGixrfBk0.99




    If we have the right to bear arms why are we registering them????


    michael powers's photos



    Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.




    michael powers's photos


    Last edited by kathyet2; 04-29-2014 at 03:33 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Firearms Refresher Course


    'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.' ~ Thomas Jefferson
    (This is why Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton want gun control so badly! )

    It worked for them but not in our country!


    1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
    2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
    3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
    4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
    5. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
    6. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
    7. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
    8. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
    9. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
    10. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
    11. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
    12. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
    13. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
    14. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no p eace, no safety.
    15. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
    16. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
    17. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
    18. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
    19. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
    20. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
    21. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
    22. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
    23. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
    24. If you want better Gun Control - PRACTICE



    Last edited by kathyet2; 04-30-2014 at 10:38 AM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Anti-Gun Michael Bloomberg Has Armed Guards
    Posted on April 29, 2014 by Gary DeMar


    Former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending $50 million to oppose the NRA. More restrictions on guns only make it easier for lawless people to take advantage of law-abiding citizens.

    As Mr. Bloomberg travels around the country trying to amend the Second Amendment through legislation, he is accompanied by armed guards.

    While Bloomberg might be worth billions of dollars, his life is no more important than mine. If he gets to have armed guards to protect him, why should I be denied the right to arm myself to protect me?

    So how does Bloomberg answer critics who claim he’s being a hypocrite? This is from Erika Soto Lamb who is a spokesperson for Bloomberg’s new “Everytown for Gun Safety” gun control group: “Because people on your side of the debate threaten our lives. We’re not anti-gun. Why do you criticize our security?”

    It’s OK for Bloomberg to have armed security because of the chance that someone might try to harm him. Exactly! She made our argument.
    We’ve seen this hypocrisy before. It’s common among liberals.

    Anti-gun crusader Juan Williams admitted that when his wife had her car stolen at a gas station, the first thing she said was, “I wish I had a gun.”
    A few weeks ago Williams said that what’s needed today is a “gun-free America.” Hey, Juan, tell that to your wife! Maybe the thief heard what you said on the subject and knew your wife would be an unarmed easy target.

    Many people have forgotten Carl Rowan (1925–2000). Rowan was a nationally-syndicated op-ed columnist for the Washington Post and the Chicago Sun-Times. He was one of the most prominent black journalists of the 20th century. He was also a gun-control advocate.

    In a 1981 column, he advocated “a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail — period.”
    In 1985, he called for “A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel).”

    On June 14, 1988, Rowan gained national attention when he shot a teenage trespasser who was on his property illegally. Rowan was charged for firing a gun that he did not legally own. Rowan was arrested and tried. During the trial, he argued that he had the right to use whatever means necessary to protect himself and his family.

    In 2006, Rosie O’Donnell said that “the right to bear arms” is “not really a right.” What she meant to say is that it’s only a right for some people; it does not apply to people like her. During the April 19, 1999 broadcast of her talk show, she stated, “You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison.”

    This all changed when she felt threatened. An article in the May 25, 2000 issue of The Stamford Advocate reported the following:
    “An application for a concealed weapon permit by Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard has some Greenwich neighbors of the television personality and gun-control advocate up in arms.

    “The application, which is pending with the Greenwich Police Department, led to a rumor that the permit’s purpose would be to allow the bodyguard to legally carry a gun when accompanying O'Donnell's son to public school in September.”

    These elitists live above the law. Their lives are more valuable than yours or mine. They are the philosopher kings who know what’s best for the “little people.”

    Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15357/a...uiY2fkPTZAm.99








  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Video at link below

    Head of Michael Bloomberg's Gun Control Group Stepping Down






    On April 30th Mark Glaze—the head of Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG)—announced he will be stepping down in June.

    This announcement comes less three weeks since Bloomberg pledged to spend $50 million to challenge the NRA in the 2014 mid-term elections.

    According to the Chicago Tribune, Glaze became the executive director of MAIG in 2011. He still supports the gun laws Bloomberg is pursuing, but the fight has become tiresome for him.
    Said Glaze: "This issue is unbelievably important to me. But it's a tough issue and a tough grind. And there's a point where you feel you've done all you can do."
    For those who look at MAIG as a failing organization because of its inability to beat the NRA, Glaze said: "People who thought that you were going to win the hardest public policy fight there is overnight and defeat the toughest special interest were kidding themselves."
    Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...&utm_term=More

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Ten Thoughts on the Second Amendment and Gun Control


    I recently spoke on a panel at the Florida Liberty Summit in Orlando, Florida, about the Second Amendment and gun control. Because I have written many articles on these topics for Campaign for Liberty, the Tenth Amendment Center, LewRockwell.com, and the Future of Freedom Foundation, I thought it might be a good idea to reread them in order to be mentally prepared for any questions I would be asked by the moderator or the audience at the conference. In going through the articles, I came up with ten themes on the Second Amendment and gun control that summarize my thoughts on these matters.

    1. Criminals aren’t deterred by gun-control laws.
    If you are going to commit armed robbery or murder, the last thing on your mind is concern about violating some gun-control law. Gun-control laws infringe upon the freedom of law-abiding Americans.

    2. The Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions did not institute gun freedom.
    The Heller case (200 acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects “an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes.” The McDonald case (2010) affirmed that opinion. The cases did not invalidate a single federal gun-control law or regulation. Justice Scalia said that there are “undoubtedly” limits to the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.


    3. The Second Amendment has no exceptions.
    The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to dangerous or unusual weapons, automatic weapons, weapons not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written, national security, emergencies, reasonable regulations, or extenuating circumstances.

    4. The Second Amendment is irrelevant
    .

    The Second Amendment recognizes a natural right that already exists. It grants no rights. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect Americans’ rights from infringement by the new and powerful central government under the Constitution. People misconstrue the nature of the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment didn’t exist, Americans would still have the natural and moral right to keep and bear arms for any purpose. Even if the Second Amendment only applied to the states’ ability to maintain a militia, like many liberals say, this would still not affect Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. In Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, no grant of power is given to the federal government to make any gun-control laws.

    5. The right to keep and bear arms is a private property issue
    .

    It is just as wrong for the government to mandate that a business must permit “open carry” or “concealed carry” on its property as it is for the government to mandate that a business must not permit “open carry” or “concealed carry” on its property. And any American has the natural right to possess any weapon on his own property or the property of anyone else that allows such weapons.

    6. The Constitution authorizes no federal gun laws whatsoever
    .

    This means no National Firearms Act of 1934, no Gun Control Act of 1968, no Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, no Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994, and no laws or regulations regarding handguns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, grenades, bazookas, ammunition, magazines, tanks, background checks, or barrel lengths. Anyone who supports federal laws or regulations concerning any of these things is an enemy of the Constitution.

    7. The ATF should not exist
    .

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has no constitutional authority whatsoever. None of its almost 5,000 employees should have a job and none of its annual budget of over a billion dollars should be spent. The federal government has no business taxing or regulating alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or explosives.

    8. The Second Amendment hasn’t prevented a single gun-control law from being passed
    .

    The federal government is out of control. The Constitution has utterly failed to restrain the federal government. The Second Amendment hasn’t prevented the federal government from infringing upon gun rights and instituting hundreds of federal gun control laws. In light of this, the fact that the McDonald case said that the Second Amendment now applies to the states means absolutely nothing. The Constitution and the Second Amendment only mean what the Supreme Court say they mean.

    9. Most Republicans are enemies of the Constitution and the Second Amendment
    .

    Republicans may claim that they revere and follow the Constitution. Republicans may claim to believe in the Second Amendment. Yet, they continue to fund the ATF, support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), support federal licensing of gun dealers, and support federal gun laws. When Republicans had an absolute majority in Congress and a Republican president (George W. Bush) for over four years they did nothing to roll back federal gun laws.

    10. The answer is gun freedom
    .

    In a free society (and we don’t live in a free society right now), there would be real gun freedom. Guns would be advertised, bought, and sold just like any other product. There would be no government restrictions of any kind on gun shows, gun sales, gun manufacturing, or gun dealers. There would be no special taxes on guns or ammunition. There would be no mandatory waiting periods or background checks.
    Please read in full my articles on the Second Amendment and gun control for further expansion of these themes.

    Copyright © 2014 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.


    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...9#.U2Ob0sdqP5Y
    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...9#.U2Ob0sdqP5Y

  10. #10
    Administrator ALIPAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Gheen, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    67,849
    We know the plan is for full gun confiscation! Those messages are in every direction coming from those advocating gun restrictions.

    Their plan is to invade America with illegals and replace us incrementally in our jobs and homes while incrementally taking our rights and our guns.

    W
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •