Thread: A Little Gun History

Email: A Little Gun History
October 20, 2009 1:12 pm ET

The following email has been widely forwarded and has been reposted numerous times on conservative blogs. Media Matters Action Network has written a response to the text below. Please feel free to copy and paste it and send to your friends.

A Little Gun History

[note - all mistakes below are original to the text]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [f] Gun History
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:30:45 -0400
From: xxxx@comcast.net
To:

*Gun History *

After reading the following historical facts, read the part about
Switzerland twice

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From
1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in
1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated..

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From
1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and
exterminated

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT ISSUES EVERY ADULT THEY TRAIN A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!

DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!

If you are too, please forward.

Just think how powerful our government is getting!
They think those other countries just didn't do it right.

Learn from history.

Response

Wow, the Swiss sound like they have it made! I had to find out if the Switzerland stats are really true.

A quick internet search proved that old adage: "If it's too good to be true, it probably is."

I found out that Switzerland has a system called conscription, which requires every male Swiss to endure 21 weeks of basic military training beginning between the ages of 19 and 25 and lasting up until the age of 35 or 50. More strict than the U.S. Military Reserves or National Guard, under conscription, the Swiss will spend "the next 22 to 32 years...[in a] succession of two- to three-week training camps...until he's accrued 300 to 1,300 days of active service." The Swiss government does allow every soldier to keep "his military outfit, his weapon, and war ammunition at home at all times...[but] the ammunition shall only be opened in case of war." 3.2.1 Switzerland: Military service So, what good is having a lot of guns in a lot of houses, if you can't use the ammo?

And until 1996, if you refused to join the Swiss army, the government would put you in jail. Now, the government will allow a "conscientious objector" to serve in a non-combat capacity (although the website notes that this isn't common). And don't think you can move out of the country or flunk the required military physical and get away with not giving the army its due: "if declared unable for service, a citizen must serve on the civil protection...and pay a military substitute tax (3% of total gross income)."

http://www.wri-irg.org/system/files/...witzerland.pdf)

Holy socialfascimarxicommunism, Batman! It appears there is a trade-off for having government-issued "guns in [many] home[s]": "the next 22 to 32 years" of your life in the military.

But that's not all that this "Little Gun History" lesson leaves out. FactCheck.org also debunks the claim that the Japanese did not invade America because they knew Americans were armed:

"One of the more fanciful claims in the message is that during World War II "the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!" In fact, according to the U.S. Army's Center for Military History, Japan in World War II had set its sights mainly on Asia; its attacks on U.S. military targets were intended to clear the way for Asian conquests...Japan had no thought of invading the U.S. mainland, and the idea it was deterred from such an invasion by fear of homeowners with guns in their closets is historically absurd."

FactCheck

FactCheck.org also researched the other claims in the email:

"As for the other claims, we talked to Dr. Robert Spitzer, a political science professor and the author of "The Politics of Gun Control" and two other books on gun control legislation. Spitzer called the e-mail "a cartoonish view of the complex events" regarding the rise of Nazi Germany, the Cambodian mass killings and the other events that the anonymous author attributes to gun laws. "The people who write these things don't know comparative politics, they don't know international relations, they haven't studied war," Spitzer told us.

We have no doubt that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot tried to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But that doesn't mean that gun control necessarily leads to totalitarian dictatorships. This reasoning is a classic example of the fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" - "after this, therefore because of this." The fact that one thing happens after another does not mean that there's any causation involved. And that rule would apply to anyone making an argument completely counter to that of our e-mail author, as well."

FactCheck

And rest assured, you're not the only "firm believer" in the 2nd Amendment. I found a video of President Obama promising "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Watch it yourself: Sportsmen for Obama - YouTube



So, there you have it: gun control doesn't automatically equal a dictatorship, the Swiss way of life may not be for everyone, and Obama's not taking away our guns. Let's learn all the "history" before we forward these on in the future.
–Media Matters Action Network


Email: A Little Gun History | Media Matters Action Network



Please note this was in 2009, Take note, before it's too late! With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects' or in some cases massacred with no ability to resist and protect

How to stop a massacre: Surveillance video reveals simple, low-cost solution that works everywhere

Sunday, July 22, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)


(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado Batman movie theater shooting, a surveillance video has surfaced that shows the simple, obvious answer to the question on everybody's mind: How do we stop a massacre?

The answer is revealed in the stunning short video shown below. This remarkable solution:

• Requires no police.
• Costs the taxpayers no money.
• Requires no up-front paperwork.
• Protects innocent lives.
• Is deployed in as little as FIVE seconds.
• Works everywhere.
• Deters violent crime.
• Makes bad guys flee immediately.
• Is easy to learn.
• Functions at the local level.
• Does not require control or intervention by the United Nations or any government entity.

Watch the video at:
http://youtu.be/KjH3ZMUks1o

Or just click PLAY to see it here:

How to stop a massacre: Surveillance video reveals simple, low-cost solution that works everywhere

• Does not require control or intervention by the United Nations or any government entity.

Watch the video at:
http://youtu.be/KjH3ZMUks1o

Or just click PLAY to see it here:

Shock revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado would have arrested anyone who stopped the Batman massacre with a concealed weapon

Sunday, July 22, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

2,077
[Share this Article]
(NaturalNews) Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?" See that article here: Why did no one fight back? Questions linger over James Holmes Batman movie theater shooting

Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

• Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.

• Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!

In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacre
"I cannot help but think, if one person in that audience was carrying a gun with them, that person could have saved lives. Unfortunately - despite what some of the Left have said - this tragedy is an example of the importance of our Second Amendment Rights," reports Ron Meyer at CNS News (The Right Views, Right Now | CNSNews.com...).

"Crime rates alone of cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. prove that gun bans only increase crime. The D.C. police response rate is eight minutes; most crimes are done in less than one. Gun bans create a trouble-free world for criminals considering no one can defend themselves."

As a lawful, FBI-background-checked individual with a concealed carry permit, if I had been present in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater during this shooting, I would have been arrested and charged as a felon for discharging my own firearm aimed at James Holmes. It is apparently a "crime" to defend innocent lives, protect children, stop a shooting and end a massacre in Aurora Colorado. It is a crime to protect your own children from violence.

Violent criminals now know to target Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Longmont and other "gun ban" cities in Colorado
According to current Colorado law (Firearms Regulations in the 20 Largest Colorado Municipalities), it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in all the following cities:

Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Colorado Springs, Denver, Englewood, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont, Northglenn, Pueblo, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge.

It is illegal to even OWN a large number of firearms in Thornton and Lafayette. In Aurora, it is illegal to carry a firearm in a vehicle! Thus, even driving to a movie theater with a firearm in your own car makes you a criminal.

These laws did not stop James Holmes from driving with a loaded gun in his car, along with explosives that were also found in his car. Once again, this demonstrates that gun control laws only disarm the public while allowing criminals to have "free reign" over a completely helpless public.

Here are some of the other gun control laws that already exist in Aurora: (Firearms Regulations in the 20 Largest Colorado Municipalities)

1. "Dangerous weapon" includes firearm
2. Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.
3. Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.
4. Unlawful to carry concealed "dangerous weapon"
5. Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.
6. Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant
7. Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.
8. Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.

By definition criminals do not abide by such laws
Notice, again, that none of these laws stopped James Holmes. By definition criminals do not follow these laws. Thus, the only real impact of gun disarmament of the public is to create yet more victims by making sure the honest, law-abiding citizenry is completely defenseless against criminals.

So this answers my previous question of why nobody shot back. The answer is that all law-abiding citizens left their guns at home in order to "comply" with Aurora gun control laws!

This is precisely what allowed the massacre to produce such a high body count. Had just one person been in that audience with a concealed carry permit and a loaded firearm, they could have shot back and ended the massacre. The number of dead could have been sharply reduced. Lives could have been saved.

"Mass shootings can be stopped. People need to arm themselves with the facts (and with weapons). If one law-abiding person in the theater had been carrying a gun, lives could have been saved," writes Hillary Cherry at CNS News (The Right Views, Right Now | CNSNews.com...).

And she's right.

Gun disarmament really means gun concentration in the hands of government
A disarmed public is helpless against crazed shooters. But the government wants you to believe that the answer to all this is yet more gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens.

This makes about as much sense as trying to fight a fire by throwing gasoline on it. If the reality is that police can't protect you and that honest, law-abiding citizens are forced to leave all their guns at home, then how are violent criminals (who ignore laws, of course) supposed to be stopped by forcing even more restrictive gun control laws onto the victims themselves?

The Aurora, Colorado shooting victims died in their seats because they could not shoot back. Now, Obama, Bloomberg and others want to actually promote those same victim conditions across the entire nation, practically ensuring more violent crime takes place against a disarmed and helpless public.

Washington D.C., it seems, will not be satisfied until we are all placed in the same seats under which the victims of Aurora, Colorado helplessly died. We are all to be made powerless, defenseless and totally dependent on government employees with guns (i.e. police) instead of having the right to defend our own families against random acts of sudden violence.

Now it all makes sense: Aurora, Denver and Boulder will be the perfect targets for future massacres because violent criminals who want to kill as many people as possible are smart enough to understand their odds are better when nobody can shoot back.

This is why Hitler disarmed the Jews, of course, before sending them to the gas chambers. It's so much easier to load people onto railroad cars at gunpoint if they can't shoot back. Disarmament has always been the aim of every government that sought total power over the People. Historically, this has almost always led to mass murder or genocide at the hands of corrupt, criminal government.

Self defense is a DIVINE right
The right to protect your person, your children and your family is a divine right, granted in alignment with the principles of our Creator. We see self defense reflected throughout nature, from the spines on a cactus plant to the ability of nearly every plant or animal to fight back against predators that would cause it harm.

The United Nations, which is an evil, destructive force of global domination, does not recognize the fundamental human right of self defense. Instead, it pursues a philosophy of a "monopoly of violence" in the hands of world governments.

The United Nations, in other words, is not truly "anti-gun," it simply wants all the guns in the hands of government workers and none of the guns in the hands of the people.

Remember this about gun control: No government seeks to eliminate ALL guns. It only seeks to monopolize the guns in the hands of government and thereby create a so-called "monopoly of violence" to be used against the People.

You don't hear governments, for example, say they're going to disarm all their police, disarm the FBI, disarm the ATF and disarm the military. That would be "disarmament" if really true. No, what they propose is selectively disarming only the public while concentrating the "monopoly of violence" in the hands of the government.

This creates a dangerous imbalance of power, especially given that cities and states are sharply cutting back on law enforcement budgets due to increasing debt. The police simply can't protect private citizens from violence, and the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado absolutely proves it. Let there be no doubt that dialing 911 and screaming for help does about as much good as crossing your fingers and wishing for a magical genie to appear and take out the bad guy.

But we don't need magical genies to do that job. We already have millions of law-abiding citizens all across the country who responsibly carry concealed weapons, acting as a powerful deterrent to outbreaks of violence. Those citizens pass background checks, they get fingerprinted, they must pass training courses to show competency in handling firearms. But citizens who can stop crime are not welcomed in Aurora, Colorado!

Because stopping a massacre in Aurora is a crime!

Aurora, the city of surrender to violent crime
Aurora, Colorado should rename itself "the city of surrender" to violent crime. Welcome to Aurora! Disarm yourself and prepare to be shot, because even though you're not allowed to protect yourself, our police force is so thin and spread out that we can't protect you either. Good luck!

Mass shootings CAN be stopped. They can be stopped by private citizens working with the same aims as peace officers: to stop the violence immediately, thereby saving lives.

It is astonishing that cities like Aurora, Colorado do not allow citizens to protect themselves against violence. The deaths of those 12 victims rest squarely on the officials of the city of Aurora who deliberately created an environment of total helplessness that directly led to the unnecessary deaths of innocent people, including young women and children.

City and state officials of Colorado are, in my view, negligent in these deaths and should be sued by the families of the survivors for criminalizing self defense. Shame on these officials! Shame of those who demand that we all become victims of violent crime. Shame on those who call for yet more disarmament of the public which will inevitably lead to yet more violent crime that can't be stopped.

Think about these FACTS for a second
• The massacre in Aurora took only two minutes to carry out.
• The average response time of police is, at minimum, six minutes (and getting worse).
• A typical concealed carry holder can draw, aim and shoot back in less than five seconds.
Do the math.

Watch my video message about grieving for the loss of life as well as the "Divine Right of self defense"
Watch the full video here:
Divinity Now: Dealing with the loss of loved ones; and the immortality of the soul - YouTube

Or click PLAY on the video thumbnail below:


Additional sources:
Shooting suspect gun club membership rejected
Movie massacre suspect mum; Batman mask found - Boston.com

Learn more: Shock revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado would have arrested anyone who stopped the Batman massacre with a concealed weapon

We Can't Make Americans Safer By Making Them Defenseless
By Charlie Daniels
July 23, 2012



The world is aware and aghast at the horrible and bizarre tragedy that took place in Aurora, CO. At the time of this writing, the details are still somewhat sketchy but as they emerge it becomes evident that James Holmes had been planning this abominable evil for some time.

From the pictures I've seen so far, this monster appears perfectly normal; not the look of a heartless mass murderer on the level with any al-Qaeda terrorist, capable of causing indiscriminate death and suffering with no regard for age or innocence.

The true extent of the suffering he has caused can only be felt by the family members of the dead victims and those who lie in hospital beds, their lives forever changed for doing something as mundane as walking into a movie theater. My heart and prayers go out to each one of them.

The nation is in shock and wondering how we go about keeping acts like this from ever happening again. Of course the politicians are licking their chops and the anti-gun lobby is chomping at the bit to take advantage of the moment to pass some meaningless piece of feel good firearms legislation.

Let me say here and now. I have owned guns since my preteen years, every male in our family had guns, our neighbors had guns, our acquaintances had guns, but not one of us ever fired one in an offensive fashion unless it was by virtue of serving in the military, or in a sheriff's posse in bygone years.

There are enough firearms laws on the books now to paper the south wall of the Grand Canyon, and I - and folks like me - abide by them. We're the ones who apply for carry permits, buy our guns from reputable dealers and not from some thug on the street corner. We're the ones who buy the hunting licenses, observe all the safety rules and never point a gun, empty or loaded at anything we don't want to shoot.

The people President Obama referred to as clinging to our “guns or religion” are not the ones who hold up liquor stores, we're not the home invaders, or the bank robbers, we're not the ones who rape defenseless women at gunpoint, we don't do drive by shootings or terrorize convenience stores.

The only reason any of us would shoot another human being would be to protect ourselves and our families. And yet knowing this, there are those who would make it a crime for people like us to own a gun.

Well, to those of you of that persuasion, let me pose a question. If the people who kill and maim with guns they have illegally obtained won't obey the volumes of gun laws on the books now, what makes you think they would obey a new one that required that everybody give up their guns.

Do you honestly think it would make America a safer place or would it make every house in America a potential target for home invasion, the criminals knowing that the most lethal weapon they'd have to face would be a water pistol?

Would it make car jacking easier for the criminals if they knew that the driver is not going to pull out a .40 cal and put their lights out?

Would convenience store employees be safer?

Would the nurse who works the late shift and has to approach her car in a dim parking garage feel more at ease?

Would the people who would not be alive now had they not had a weapon when some thug accosted them say they think it's a good idea?

It's so simple, instead of putting more Band-Aids on the problem it needs to be dealt with in a mature fashion. Instead of taking the legal guns out of the locked gun cases in law abiding citizen's homes, take the illegal guns out of the hands of the violent punks who use them to harm innocent people, and you don't need a new law for that, it's already on the books in triplicate.

These thugs already have guns you can't even buy legally now. Try buying an Uzi or a MAC-10 through legal channels.

Gun dealers who let guns walk without proper clearances should be put out of business; we already have laws for that.

Firearms companies who knowingly let firearms go to outlets they know will sell them to criminals should be banned from doing business in America and we already have a law for that now.

Attorney generals who put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels should be prosecuted. We have laws for that too if there wasn't a president standing in the way.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

See more "Right Views, Right Now" opinion and analysis.


We Can't Make Americans Safer By Making Them Defenseless | CNSNews.com

posted on July 23, 2012 byGary DeMar
The Most Pro-Gun Low-Crime City in the United States


its-the-law-in-kennesawThe anti-Second Amendment crowd is on the warpath again. PBS’ Bill Moyers, who served as White House Press Secretary in the Lyndon Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967, called the NRA “the enabler of death.” It seems to me that James Holmes is the Enabler of Death. 65 million other gun owners in the United States didn’t kill anybody last Thursday evening.

I live just a few miles from the most pro-gun city in the United States – Kennesaw Georgia – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’ The award was aimed at identifying the best communities nationally that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools, wide-open spaces, and less stress.”[1]

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

The city’s website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populace counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

Of course, criminals don’t care about laws; that’s why they’re criminals. Ed Stone of Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner makes these important points:

“Unfortunately experience with actual ‘school safety zones’ in Georgia has proven that the ‘school safety zone’ law approach does not stop violent armed crime, as it disarms only the potential victims of an attack. Criminals seeking to rob, rape, and murder ignore the ‘school safety zone’ as merely one more law they are breaking.”

Now we come to New York City. In September 2011 Ryan Jerome, a former Marine Corps gunner, walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he could check his gun.

He had a valid concealed carry permit from his home state of Indiana. He also had the rights given to him under the Second Amendment. No matter, the security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail. “The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.”

He brought the gun for protection since he was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell. Certainly a rational decision, given the crime rate in New York City and stories like the U.S. Marine veteran who was shot three times when a Craigslist transaction went bad.

In December of 2011, Tennessee nurse Meredith Graves noticed a “no guns” sign at the World Trade Center site in New York City and asked where she could leave her weapon. Like Jerome, she was arrested and faces similar charges. Mayor Bloomberg claims that she was in possession of cocaine. It seems that what the police found was BC Powder, an over-the-counter pain reliever that is sold exclusively in the South.

In a 25-year period, New York City has had more than 15,000 murders – 2245 in 1990 alone – while Kennesaw, Georgia, had 1.
Notes:

Family Circle, August 2007. [↩]


Read more: The Most Pro-Gun Low-Crime City in the United States : Political Outcast


Government-Educated Mass Murderers - Godfather Politics

In a 25-year period, New York City has had more than 15,000 murders – 2245 in 1990 alone – while Kennesaw, Georgia, had 1.

Hey Bloomberg did you get that part??? Of course this was written in 2007...wonder what the stats are now!!

Mexican President: U.S. Gun Laws Are "Mistaken"

Katie Pavlich
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

Jul 23, 2012 07:31 AM EST

While ignoring the inconvenient fact that part of the reason why 63,000 people have been slaughtered in Mexico since 2006 is because Mexican citizens aren't allowed to legally own guns and defend themselves against ruthless drug cartels purchasing guns in bulk from China and Latin America, Mexican President Felipe Calderon is lecturing the United States again about how we need to reform our "mistaken" gun laws.

"Because of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, the American Congress must review its mistaken legislation on guns. It's doing damage to us all," Calderon said.

Remember, Calderon called for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban in May 2010 during an address to a joint session of Congress. Calderon is also a big supporter of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, better known as the "Small Arms Treaty." Not to mention, Aurora Colorado already has strict gun laws and the theatre was a gun free zone. Calderon is also partially responsible for Homeland Security's "bean bag" policy after he raised hell about Border Patrol shooting a teenager who was throwing rocks at them.

When President Calderon gives up his armed to the teeth security detail, then we can talk about gun control. Until then, he should really try and keep his mouth shut. The reason America isn't Mexico is because of our "mistaken" gun laws and I, like many others, want to keep it that way.




Mexican President: U.S. Gun Laws Are "Mistaken" - Katie Pavlich

Second Amendment In UN’s crosshairs
Filed under 2nd Amendment, Big Brother, Constitution {22 Comments}

UNNYC

American Second Amendment rights and U.S. foreign policy interests could be directly threatened by the latest wording of a United Nations draft treaty seeking control over international trade in conventional weapons, FoxNews.com has learned.

A U.S. delegate argued against the provisions during closed-door talks Friday, but insiders close to the proceedings say UN approval of a final document by the self-imposed July 27 deadline remains likely.

The development comes just days after Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, warned there should be “no compromise” on the issue of a U.S. citizen’s right to own a firearm.

Mr. President, thank you for this brief opportunity to address this conference. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 21 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world, with four million members who represent 100 million law-abiding Americans who own firearms.

On behalf of those 100 million American gun owners, I am here to announce NRA’s strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens’ right to self-defense.

No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us.

We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based.

For six years, the NRA has closely monitored this effort for an Arms Trade Treaty.

We have watched with increasing concern and, one year ago, I delivered to the Preparatory Committee our objections to including civilian arms in the ATT. I said then … and I will repeat now … that the only way to address NRA’s objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty.

That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom. Period.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment so Americans would never have to live in tyranny.

For any foreign entity to attempt to encroach on that great freedom is offensive to every American who has ever breathed our free air, or who has ever used a firearm to fend off an evil attacker – whether a criminal breaking into their home, or in defense of their family against a tyrant halfway around the world.

Our Second Amendment is freedom’s most valuable, most cherished, most irreplaceable idea. History proves it. When you ignore the right of good people to own firearms to protect their freedom, you become the enablers of future tyrants whose regimes will destroy millions and millions of defenseless lives.

Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms.

Let there be no confusion. Any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA’s greatest force of opposition.

Mr. President, there are those who believe that merely excluding civilian firearms from the ATT preamble will be sufficient.

Let me state – in the clearest possible terms – that it is not. A preamble to a treaty has no force of law. We know that, and a strong bipartisan majority of the United States Senate and House of Representatives know it as well.

Any Arms Trade Treaty must be adopted by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, which has 100 members. Already, 58 Senators have objected to any treaty that includes civilian arms, and a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives also opposes such a treaty.

The NRA represents hundreds of millions of Americans who will never surrender our fundamental firearms freedom to international standards, agreements, or consensus.

America will always stand as a symbol of freedom and the overwhelming force of a free, armed citizenry to protect and preserve it.

On behalf of all NRA members and American gun owners, we are here to announce that we will not tolerate any attack – from any entity or organization whatsoever – on our Constitution or our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Thank you.

I brought over his speech because the video doesn't want to work, it stops and starts here is another link

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ne...d-nations.aspx



Continue Reading on Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

UN arms treaty aims at terror, but puts Second Amendment in crosshairs | Fox News



Second Amendment In UN’s crosshairs*|*Front Porch Politics

July 24, 2012 by Tim Brown
Bloomberg: Police Shouldn’t Protect Americans Until There Is More Gun Control
1002 Comments
596

michael-bloombergWell New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has done it again and demonstrated how stupid he really is. On CNN’s Big Story with Piers Morgan, Bloomberg made an utterly ridiculous comment that is almost on par with his views on Big Gulp drinks.

“Well I would take it one step further. I don’t understand why the police officers of this country don’t stand up collectively and say, ‘We’re gonna go on strike. We’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature do what’s required to keep us safe (ie. more gun control). After all police officers want to go home to their families.”

This comment came in response to Morgans question, “Why do so many Americans not feel angry enough to demand further gun control?”

Bloomberg went on to say,

“We’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult, but more importantly more dangerous by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor piercing bullets. The only reason to have armor piercing bullets is to go through bullet resistant vests. The only people who wear bullet resistant vest are our police officers and that’s true across this whole country. So, we should at some point, we have to understand that this is our children or grandchildren or us, but for the police officers it’s much more immediate because when you and I hear shots we run away. They run towards it.”

When I heard this I turned to my wife and asked rhetorically, “How do morons like Mr. Bloomberg get in office? Let’s deal with his argument here.

First he says that the police should go on strike and not protect citizens till they enact more gun laws. OK fine, police go on strike, they stop getting paid. We pay them to perform a job and honestly it isn’t really protection they provide. Plenty of police officers were right there at the theater in Aurora, Colorado and did they protect anyone? Nope, not one person. Police officers are to enforce the law and that is why they are referred to as law enforcement officers. If they don’t want to do their jobs, then let them step aside and find another line of work.

Gun control laws will not protect police officers and they will not protect citizens. I demonstrated that on Monday A piece of paper protects from a speeding bullet about as well as those police officers did in Aurora. I’m not taking a shot at police officers here. What I’m doing is pointing out Bloomberg’s fallacies.

Officers want to go home to their families like we all do. Police officers also have a weapon they carry with them too. Why then should law-abiding citizens not be allowed to keep and bear their arms all day so that they might return home to their families Mr. Bloomberg?

We are not doing anything to make police officers’ jobs more difficult or dangerous. If you have people who have shown themselves to be a threat deal with that, but leave the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens alone.

Bloomberg goes of on a ridiculous notion about armor piercing bullets. OK, let’s get this out in the open. I wrote about this very topic as New Jersey was putting in place a law to ban ammunition. Most law enforcement wear Level II-A protective vests that stop 9mm and .40 bullets. So that means that if strictly taken for armor piercing all other ammunition would be banned. This means you would be unable to get ammo for your AR-15, many hunting rifles and even some handguns, such as your trusty .45.

Also some citizens can purchase these items to protect themselves. So Mayor Bloomberg is just not being honest here. The police officers are not the only ones wearing such protection and you don’t need “armor piercing” bullets to penetrate the vests most police officers wear.

He is right about one thing though. It is about us, our children and grand children. It’s about whether or not we are going to live in a land where a corrupt government and criminals are the only ones with guns and we are at the mercy of both, neither or which are able to protect us in a time of crisis.




Read more: Bloomberg: Police Shouldn't Protect Americans Until There Is More Gun Control : Freedom Outpost

posted on July 26, 2012 byKevin Craig
NRA Membership Supports Government Control of Guns? Are They Nuts?


A pro-gun-control group is reporting that “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” yesterday released the findings of a survey by GOP pollster and Fox News commentator Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of government laws designed to prevent those deemed “dangerous” from owning guns under the Second Amendment.
The idea that the U.S. Federal Government or anyone approved by Washington D.C. should have the authority to determine who is “dangerous” is itself a “dangerous” idea.

Jesse Ventura, in his latest book, DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans, compares Washington D.C. with two dangerous gangs, the “Bloods” and the “Crips.” For all the killings these urban gangs are responsible for, Washington D.C. is far more dangerous:

Washington D.C. is a dangerous criminal syndicate that has hired hit men to commit nearly 50 million murders of unborn human beings since 1973;

Washington D.C. is a dangerous gang that gave guns to dangerous Mexican drug cartels (“Fast and Furious”);

Washington D.C. is an organized ring of school bullies that orders local public school teachers to remove all copies of God’s command “Thou shalt not kill” from public school walls;

“The Government” is a ring of highway bandits that seized $2.1 Billion in “asset forfeiture proceedings” in 1994, often without “probable cause,” and often not returned even when innocence was proven, while that same year “criminals” committed 7,885 bank robberies, taking only $28 million. The Institute for Justice estimates that proceeds to governments from “asset forfeiture” now exceed $500 billion per year;

D.C. elites are dangerous international revolutionaries that overthrew the government of Iran in 1953 for the benefit of petroleum corporations, propping up a dictator over Iran for a quarter of a century of murder and torture, setting up a sequence of predictable events that would lead to the Iranian Revolution, taking U.S. diplomats hostage, giving weapons and military aid to Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran (killing over a million people), senselessly slaughtering thousands of retreating soldiers on the “Highway of Death,” killing thousands of Christians and destroying the largest Christian-friendly government in the Arab world and replacing it with an Islamic Theocracy under Shariah Law which turns away when remaining Christian churches are burned;

Washington D.C. is a gang of dangerous terrorists that armed Islamic fanatics like Osama bin Laden with shoulder-fired missiles and other weapons to fight an invasion by the murderous Soviet Union, which the dangerous gang leaders in Washington D.C. had previously helped build troop transport trucks in the largest truck factory in the world (built by a government-subsidized Ford Motor Co. on the Kama River), as well as the superhighway through the Kabul Pass which facilitated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan;

D.C. gang members are sick arsonists who fire-bombed a million people to death in Dresden and Tokyo, while their counterparts in the White House were setting up China to fall to the Communists, who subsequently murdered over 70 million people, just as Roosevelt handed over Eastern Europe to Washington’s sister gang, the Stalinists, murderers of tens of millions of people;

The very idea that this pathologically dangerous gang of murderers, thieves, and kidnappers should have the power to decide that certain American individuals s are “dangerous” and should not be allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights is staggering. Liberals wring their hands over nuts that dress up like comic-book characters, and ignore the most dangerous of all super-villains: the one they created in Washington D.C.

Read more: NRA Membership Supports Government Control of Guns? Are They Nuts? : Political Outcast