Thread: Meet the 46 United States Senators who were willing to sign over your 2nd amendment

1 Million Moms & Women For The 2nd Amendment


Here Are The 46 Senators Who Voted To Turn Your 2nd Amendment Rights Over To UN. -Katniss


Meet the 46 United States Senators who were willing to sign over your 2nd amendment rights to the United Nations.

NAYs ---46
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Serious Warning to Gun Rights Supporters in Alabama
- Freedom Outpost http://ow.ly/CYFt2



Serious Warning to Gun Rights Supporters in Alabama - Freedom Outpost

ow.ly
Serious Warning to Gun Rights Supporters in Alabama


Serious Warning to Gun Rights Supporters in Alabama

Gina Miller October 18, 2014

Last week, I wrote a short column warning of the very real danger to Alabama residents' gun rights from the proposed Statewide Amendment 3 on the ballot for this November 4^th. Here is the proposed amendment:

Act 2013-267, HB8, proposes an amendment to Article I, Section 26 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms and that any restriction on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny. The proposed amendment also provides that no international treaty or law may prohibit, limit, or otherwise interfere with a citizen's fundamental right to bear arms.

The wording in the amendment makes quite clear the back door it leaves wide open for future courts or state legislatures, under the sway of leftists, to impose restrictions on Alabamans' gun rights—after "strict scrutiny," of course! But, I was astonished to learn that there are apparently supporters of this amendment among conservative, TEA Party, and gun rights groups, including "Alabama Gun Rights," whose Legislative Affairs Director, George Owens, has on his publicly viewable Facebook page a message of support for this amendment, posted on September 30^th By Brian Phillips. The post was signed by George Owens, and states, in part:

Currently there are three levels of scrutiny applied to the issues of constitutional rights; Rational Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny.

audio at link below


Passage of this Amendment will go far in protecting the rights of future generations of Alabama Citizens who may not have the blessings of a pro-gun legislature, and be faced with passage of laws that significantly curtail their right to bear arms.

This Amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, The Citizens Committee on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun owners of America, and every attorney who has argued for gun rights in every court in this nation including Alan Guara, who argued the Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago gun rights cases.

Alabama Gun Rights Inc., asks our members to make your family and friends aware of this important constitutional amendment and ask them to vote for the amendment on the November ballot.

This is dead wrong, and if true, it's deeply disturbing that all these gun rights groups are supporting this amendment. We must remember that it is leftist tyranny-pushers who have worked their way into positions of power in courts and legislatures who have used twisted "legal" arguments under the guise of terms like "strict scrutiny" to shred the United States Constitution and our natural rights.
I don't know whether conservatives who support Alabama Statewide Amendment 3 are doing so out of a lack of understanding of the danger to their gun rights that amendment poses, or if they are leftist infiltrators posing as conservatives to mislead people into voting away their God-given right to keep and bear arms. Either way, it's not good. With the words, "...and that any restriction on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny," this amendment declares that your unalienable right to keep and bear arms is not unalienable and will be subject to restriction! Don't you see? This is subtle and evil, the wordsmithing of tyrants.


I contacted retired attorney, constitutional scholar and logician extraordinaire, Publius Huldah, to give us her take on this proposed amendment. Here is what she wrote:

The proposed Amendment 3 takes away the God-given or natural right of self-defense recognized in the existing wording of Article I, Section 26 of the Declaration of Rights of the Alabama Constitution; and transforms it into a mere "fundamental right" which is subject to whatever restrictions the Alabama State government might later decide to impose.

A "fundamental right" [as opposed to a God-given or natural right] is a government created and regulated "right." This concept is being used to strip us of the God-given unalienable rights mentioned in our Declaration of Independence (2nd para), and replace them with "fundamental rights" which are subject to whatever restrictions the government wishes to impose.

The People of Alabama should take no comfort in the use of the fine-sounding terms, "fundamental rights" and "strict scrutiny". Such terms were chosen to deceive you. In this Brave New World, these terms are legal code language for replacing God given or natural rights with privileges granted and withdrawn by the government.

The proposed Amendment 3 is a treacherous scheme to deprive the People of Alabama of the God-given right of self-defense. The existing wording of Article I, § 26 does not permit the State government to impose ANY restrictions on your God-given right to self-defense.

If The People of Alabama ratify proposed Amendment 3, they will thereafter bear arms ONLY if the Alabama government says they can.

This is a serious warning, not only for the people of Alabama, but for every American in any state where nefarious people seek to tamper with our natural right to keep and bear arms. Don't be deceived by Alabama Statewide Amendment 3. It's a Trojan horse that will one day bite the hand that votes for it. Alabama, be wise and vote "NO" on this terrible amendment!
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/10/se...E33yBzdig2J.99

Amendment II

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.
mi·li·tia

məˈliSHə/

noun

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service

Billionaires Buy Gun Control in Washington: ‘Straight to Voters, Bypassing Politicians Terrified of NRA’

Mac Slavo 5 hours ago

Can billionaires buy the disarmament of America?

It is a real and growing concern. Though other attempts to restrict guns at the federal level have failed during the Obama Administration, several states – including Connecticut – have successfully passed them – notably with the help of some very deep pockets and headline-grabbing media events.

The latest is Washington state, which just passed Initiative 594, intensifying background checks and placing strict limits on personal firearm transfers (and more), with nearly 60% of the vote. A competing Initiative 591, which would have prevented the state from having more extensive background checks than the federal level, failed with only 45%.

Most media coverage has hailed the gun control measure as a victory for the people, at last bypassing the stranglehold of the NRA over politicians who have blocked reforms:

A U.S. News and World Report story carried this quote:

"While the NRA may be able to intimidated legislators, it appears that they are unable to intimidate voters," says John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. [sic]

A Seattle Times editorial stated:

ON the intractable issue of gun control, Washington voters have shot back.
Tuesday, voters took aim at the state Legislature's inability last year to pass basic, public safety-focused background checks. And they shot holes in the myth that the National Rifle Association and its allies represent the public interest.
[...]
The 3-to-2 margin in favor of I-594 indicates voters saw through the disingenuous argument made repeatedly by opponents of I-594 that background checks are the first step toward mass gun confiscation.

The Atlantic summarized its story with the subheader:

In Washington state, advocates passed some straightforward controls—by bypassing politicians terrified of the NRA and going straight to voters.

Gun control initiative 594 got a last minute bump from the tragic but conveniently timed school shooting in Marysville on October 24, driving sympathy and headlines to the issue about a week and a half before the election.

But the real push for I594 was from billionaires, including Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates, who dropped an overwhelming $10 million to support the gun control initiative, while opponents – including the 'all-powerful NRA' – spent only about half a million. Other Microsoft execs pitched in as well.



It certainly seems money talks. To sway another 2014 ballot initiative, Nevada resident and billionaire Sheldon Adelson shelled out some $5.5 million to successfully oppose Florida's attempt to legalize marijuana.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reportedly spent as much as $50 million from his personal funds just on the 2014 elections, backing the Everytown for Gun Safety movement. Bloomberg has heavily backed Moms Demand Action, formed in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, as well as Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which he formed circa 2006.

Flush with tens of millions in commitments from Bloomberg and other wealthy elites, Moms Demand Action promised back in March 2013 to "punish" lawmakers resistant to gun control in 2014 with new money to push for gun legislation – and Washington state is now a prime example of the support for ballot initiatives that money can buy.

However, reports are floating the idea that this is just a test case of future gun control initiatives to come (Nevada may be next for Bloomberg).
The barrier to passing gun control legislation with 2nd Amendment supporters in Congress at both the national and state levels has a loophole. President Obama thinks his "pen and a phone" allows him to write laws via executive order; similarly, the big money behind that agenda has found another venue – propaganda aimed directly at the voters.

If the people can be persuaded to give up their own rights, after an election season barrage of ads, newspaper buys, editorials, and other media blitzes, then billionaires who want rights restrictions for the masses can get their way.

Democracy in action? What about the rights guaranteed to individuals under the republic?

Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/bi...pPvZgBWPF8Z.99

Police Chief Wants You To Turn In Gun Enthusiasts: “We Might Want To Vet These People”

Mac Slavo December 7, 2014




Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo has asked residents of his city to keep an eye on neighbors and family members after Larry Steven McQuilliams went on a shooting spree through the Texas Capitol last week.

McQuilliams, who held some extreme views and was reportedly targeting as many as 30 people, has been described by local police as a "homegrown extremist."
In response to the shooting Acevedo has called on the Austin community to keep a watchful eye on people they know and to report any suspicious behavior to the police so that individuals, especially gun owners, can be vetted.
There are assuredly dangerous individuals in our society who have no qualms about killing innocent people, but could Acevedo's request to citizens to say something if they see something be opening a Pandora's box of government surveillance?

Let me tell you what keeps me up at night. It's these guys. It's these homegrown extremists that are lone wolfs, that are mad at the world, that are angry… That's why it's important for us as Americans to know our neighbors, to know our families.
Tell somebody.
If you know somebody that's acting with a lot of hatred towards any particular group… especially if you know that somebody's a gun enthusiast or is armed with these types of firearms and they're showing any type of propensity for hatred… it doesn't mean we're going to go in and take them to jail… But we might want to vet these people.

Within the context of the Chief's call to action it's difficult to argue with reporting to police an individual who poses a danger to others around them – especially if the individual is fueled by rage and hate, has weapons in their possession and has made claims that they intend to injure or kill others.

But where is the line? If you give them an inch they will no doubt take a mile.

In California, Governor Jerry Brown has already signed a bill that gives police the authority to "vet" individuals and seize their firearms if a family member reports that they may be mentally unstable. No proof of the allegation is necessary.

And the Veterans Administration is feverishly working to ensure that any veteran who has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or even fails to pay their personal bills on time loses access to their right to bear arms.

So, while the actions of Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo are commendable and seemingly geared for protecting the general population, could this trend of seeing something and saying something lead to a complete breakdown of Constitutional protections?

As noted above, the government has already found loopholes, legal or not, that they say give them the authority to seize firearms from individuals who have been convicted of doing absolutely nothing. Moreover, law enforcement agencies have already stripped the Fourth Amendment, as evidenced by the almost daily reports of peoples' doors being kicked and their homes searched without any sort of probable cause or on fabricated charges.

Are the police and other surveillance agencies going through a door that, once opened, can never be shut again? Are we creating a society where it's patriotic to snitch on one's neighbors? Could it potentially lead to what we've seen throughout history where even the innocent get "vetted" and detained for no other reason than having upset someone for a totally innocuous reason?

With over 1 million Americans now on No-Fly and Other Terror-related Watch Lists it should be clear that the "vetting" process is already in full swing.
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/2014/12/po...jgwjpiEZYSb.99


He wants to "vet" American's with guns. Hmmm it seems the days of vetting are long past, he forgets about the Oath of Office he swore to. WOW how quick he forgets... He took the Oath of Office to protect and serve, and follow the Constitution including protecting our rights.... I would be curious to know if he got "vetted" himself..Probably not..... Where was this guy and his vetting before some of our treasonous politicians were elected into office, apparently not doing his due diligence again at that time either..Way to go, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo..

All Over America - Sheriffs Are Standing True To Their Oath

Frank Bruni, pointed out that the flu kills far more people in the United States each year than ebola has killed ever

http://patriotoutdoornews.com/11769/...ll-gun-control




NY Times Author Uses Ebola Situation to Call for More Gun Control - Patriot Outdoor News
patriotoutdoornews.com
NY Times Author Uses Ebola Situation to Call for More Gun Control

NY Times Author Uses Ebola Situation to Call for More Gun Control

Posted on: October 18th, 2014

The author, Frank Bruni, fairly pointed out that seasonal flu kills far more people in the United States each year than ebola has killed in the entire world, ever.

However, at the very end of the editorial, he couldn’t help but stick in an argument for gun control.

So are these: fewer potato chips. Less sugary soda. Safer sex. Tighter restrictions on firearms. More than 30,000 Americans die from gunshots every year. Anyone looking for an epidemic to freak out about can find one right there.

Of course, what isn’t mentioned is that around 20,000 of those deaths are due to suicide, and a percentage of the homicides are justifiable homicides by armed citizens or police officer involved shootings.

- See more at: http://patriotoutdoornews.com/11769/....9F8UTQfW.dpuf

United Nation Gun Treaty to Take Effect Christmas Eve

by Liberty News Now - Dec 8, 2014




For the past 13 years, the United Nations has been working on a small arms treaty that has been ratified by 55 of their member states, crossing the threshold to take effect.

The treaty will begin on December 24, 2014.

The UN Gun Treaty would focus on imports and exports of conventional weapons and track their use among each nation’s civilian population.
The purpose of the treaty, according to the United Nations, is to ensure weapons don’t cross existing embargoes and do not end up being used for human rights abuses, including terrorism.

However, critics of the treaty feel the resolution goes much further.

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has been fighting the treaty for years.

The NRA-ILA states, “Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That’s a bald-faced lie.

“For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported.

“In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration.

“If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.”

Advocates of the small arms treaty claim it will reduce risk of use in nations where acts of genocide, organized crime and gender-based violence occur.
Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty on behalf of the United States in September of last year.

While Kerry signed the treaty with the support of President Obama, it must still be ratified in Congress.

However, given Obama’s unilateral action on immigration amnesty, critics of the treaty fear the president will use executive action to ratify the resolution on behalf of the United States.

The organization, Second Amendment Foundation, recently began a campaign to raise awareness of the possibility of President Obama signing an executive order on the UN Gun Treaty.

The group is also threatening a lawsuit on the issue with the organization’s founder, Alan Gottlieb, stating, “”SAF will not allow the Obama administration to attack our constitutional rights without a fight. If Barack Obama takes executive action, we will file a lawsuit to stop him, and hold him accountable.”
In the meantime, the countdown to Christmas Eve continues.

http://libertynewsnow.com/united-nat...-%2012/08/2014

Washington DC Mayor Vincent Gray Calls for Nationwide Gun Control Efforts During Speech

September 18 2014

by Dan Cannon


Washington DC Mayor Vincent Gray used the anniversary of the Navy Yard Shooting to renew his calls for gun control, not just in DC (which already has the toughest laws in the nation), but for the entire country.

Here are some of the comments Gray made during his speech.

“For me, it’s a wound that remains fresh. Residents of our city lost friends and neighbors; they lost mothers and fathers; they lost colleagues and they lost fellow church members.”
“Our country is drowning in a sea of guns.”
“Senseless gun violence like this is an all-too fact of life here in the District of Columbia and in the nation’s big cities. But it’s a fact of life that we need to stop accepting.

Why is it that these tragic occurrences never seem to move us any closer to ensure that guns don’t get in the hands of criminals or people who are mentally unstable?”
“I refuse to be silent that the time for passion is now, ladies and gentleman.”
“Guns are not the answer, ladies and gentlemen. Guns would not have saved the victims of the Navy Yard.”

Gray lamented the fact that Washington DC will have to put a carry permit process in place following the Palmer court case decision. However, as we reported yesterday, that process will likely result in very, very few permits actually being issued.

“Those laws are tough laws, and the laws of others are now under attack by Second Amendment advocates who believe in putting the rights of gun owners before community safety,” Gray continued, decrying how gunman Aaron Alexis was able to legally buy weapons in Virginia.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Dan Cannon

Founder & Editor at GunsSaveLives.net

Dan has combined his background in technology with his passion for shooting and personal rights to create one of the most read Second Amendment news websites online. Dan holds a B.Sc. degree in Information Technology and Criminology. His articles are also syndicated in The Daily Caller's "Guns and Gear" Section.

http://gunssavelives.net/