Thread: White House: Obama Will Act ‘Administratively’ and ‘Unilaterally’ On Guns

Police Dispatcher to 80-Year-Old: Put Your Gun Down During Home Invasion - The Last Resistance
lastresistance.com
A police dispatcher in Florida told an 80-year-old woman to put her gun down during a home invasion.

The Second Amendment Does Not "Give Us" a Right to Keep and Bear Arms

By Gary DeMar / 13 August 2014

Some people (maybe many) may be outraged by the title of this article. But it’s true. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. We have the right to protect ourselves. If there are people with knives who want to do me harm, then I have a right to defend myself with a weapon in kind.

The same is true of firearms.

The White House website puts a subtle twist on the Second Amendment that most Americans, even some gun rights supporters, might not catch:

“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”[1]

Don’t be surprised if some of your friends agree with the word “gives.”

The assumption is that if we didn’t have the Second Amendment – the government granting Americans the right to keep and bear arms — then nobody would be permitted to own any kind of weapon until the government enumerated that right.

The right is seen as a “gift” of government. What the government gives, the government can take away.

This is not what the Second Amendment says. The right existed before the Bill of Rights was drafted and passed.

“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.”

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/7917/second-amendment-give-us-right-keep-bear-arms/#UXo5ca75GqRw8KzE.99

More Here:

Second Amendment Does Not 'Give' Us a Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Posted August 11, 2014 by Gary DeMar

Some people (maybe many) may be outraged by the title of this article. But it’s true. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. We have the right to protect ourselves. If there are people with knives who want to do me harm, then I have a right to defend myself with a weapon in kind.

The same is true of firearms

The White House website puts a subtle twist on the Second Amendment that most Americans, even some gun rights supporters, might not catch:
“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”[1]

Don’t be surprised if some of your friends agree with the word “gives.”

The assumption is that if we didn’t have the Second Amendment – the government granting Americans the right to keep and bear arms — then nobody would be permitted to own any kind of weapon until the government enumerated that right.

The right is seen as a “gift” of government. What the government gives, the government can take away.

This is not what the Second Amendment says. The right existed before the Bill of Rights was drafted and passed.

“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.”

Wikipedia gets it right:

“The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.”


The right was already there, as were the freedoms found in the First Amendment. The states wanted to make it doubly sure that future officials of the new national government would not be under the false impression that any government is the grantor of fundamental rights.

Why would those who fought in the War for Independence all of a sudden give up a fundamental right like keeping and bearing arms in the creation of a new government that replaced a government that overstepped its civil governing boundaries?

The good folks at Gun Owners of America sent a letter to the White House offering a needed corrective:
“The Second Amendment does not ‘give’ citizens any rights. Rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200, the Second Amendment codifies,’[2] ‘protects,’[3] and ‘secure[s]’[4] a right — rather than ‘grants,’ ‘bestows,’ or ‘gives’ one.

“The Supreme Court explicitly stated that ‘it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The Second Amendment text recognizes the right as pre-existent, declaring only that it “shall not be infringed.”’ Id. at 592 (emphasis added). That is why the Court concluded in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms ‘belongs to all Americans.’ Id. at 581 (emphasis added).”

“Thus, the Second Amendment protects a right granted us by our Creator, as described in the nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It’s important to note that the three unalienable rights are only three of many (“among these”) such rights.

“By way of contrast, the White House website correctly states that the First and Fourth Amendments ‘protect’ rights, and nowhere except in reference to the Second Amendment does it describe rights as being granted by government.”

This article would be a good way to help your children understand the nuances of deceptive language and the need for proper constitutional hermeneutics.[5]

Notes:

• United States Constitution: http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-govern...e-constitution. [↩]
• District of Columbia v. Heller at 576. [↩]
• Id. at 599. [↩]
• Id. at 603. [↩]
• Hermeneutics: The art and science of interpretation. [↩]

http://godfatherpolitics.com/16612/s...eep-bear-arms/




Wake up America

Tell Congress We Won't Tolerate The Ban On Body Armor




Published on Aug 12, 2014
PopVox page link - https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/h...

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr5344

Sons of Liberty Media

Shared publicly - 10:30 AM
#Dictator

Gun Control Dictator Style http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...ictator-style/


Gun Control Dictator Style - Sons of Liberty Media
sonsoflibertymedia.com
Bradlee Dean lays out Gun Control Dictator Style


Gun Control Dictator Style
Published on: August 13, 2014

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938

How ironic that those who are calling for gun control are those who want the guns so they can have the control.
It is of interest to the American people to take note of those who they entrust to serve them. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, yet time and time again in this country we have leaders in government who put on the guise of “patriot” and then turn out to be the criminal in garb.

We learned in the past about the criminal acts of anti-gun mayors. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/exposed-c...ti-gun-mayors/) We found that anti-gun mayors are criminals themselves, guilty as charged within their own ranks of such crimes as tax evasion, extortion, accepting bribes, child pornography, trademark counterfeiting, perjury, and one demigod mayor was even convicted of assaulting a police officer.
The crimes that these anti-gunner mayors are convicted of suggest they are public enemies rather than public servants. No wonder they want to take guns from law-abiding citizens.

These politicians know all the well that where the citizenry operates in the rights given to them without government interference, namely the right to bear arms, crime diminishes. And with mud on their face, they know when they interfere with the right to bear arms, crime skyrockets.
What we see is that some of today’s politicians are magnifying the crimes they are placed in office to prevent.

They allow crime to be promoted through entertainment and when the crime is committed, they are there in hopes to grab the guns away.
This is exactly how criminals in government operate. They demonize the gun, not the criminal.

Friends, this mentality is like blaming spoons for people being overweight, as if to say the act is apart from the actor.

Since criminal politicians refuse to look at history, which can be at the present our greatest teacher, it is very clear that gun banners know exactly what they are attempting to do -– put the Second Amendment in the crosshairs.

Looking back, who has committed murder in the largest degree? Dictators Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.
Time and time again it has been a corrupt government who is responsible for the mass murder of their own people under the deceptive guise of “gun control,” all of which the said dictators implemented.

Keep in mind these people promised their citizens protection and freedom upon the forfeiture of their guns.

How many times, I ask, does history need to repeat itself?

Paralleling History
Let’s parallel history with the present ideology and methodology that those in the past blueprinted to implement gun control.
Mass murderer Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 said:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

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

Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
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.

Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:
“War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:
“I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me.”


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century’s most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.

Conclusion:
Our forefathers did not arm the American people for the purpose of hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George. The second amendment is only to vouchsafe our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to ensure all of the other rights given unto us by our Creator.

The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution once again is found consistent with the lessons of the Bible they used as their bedrock for civil law. The people’s individual protection should always be a primary concern of government “of the people”. In a righteous country, self-government reigns by the constraint of Christian morals. The civil government that desires such a monopoly of force (i.e. they are the only ones with guns) is a threat to the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, for that government ceases to be “of and for the people.”

George Washington, our first president, said:
“From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”



Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...RDOFA7dPt5y.99

New Bill In Congress Would Ban Private Citizens From Owning Body Armor

Michael Snyder 3 hours ago




A new law that has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives "would prohibit the sale, transfer or possession of military-level body armor by civilians." In other words, private citizens all over the entire nation would be permanently banned from owning body armor if this bill gets passed and signed into law. The bill that I am talking about is H.R. 5344 (The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act), and you can view the proposed legislation for yourself right here. The driving force behind this new law is Democrat Mike Honda from California. To Honda, it doesn't matter that large numbers of very responsible Americans have purchased body armor to protect themselves and their families in a society that is rapidly decaying. Instead, it makes perfect sense to Honda to ban body armor because "access to military-grade body armor emboldens criminals and mass shooters to act." And Honda wants to make possession of body armor a criminal offense with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. This is absolutely crazy, and it is yet another example of the "police state mentality" that is so prevalent among our politicians these days.

When I first learned about this new law, I could hardly believe it. But it is actually true. The following is an excerpt from a news story about the introduction of this new bill...

Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, has announced legislation that would block civilians from accessing military-grade body armor to prevent criminals from using them in gun battles with law enforcement.
Honda, speaking at a news conference in San Jose on Wednesday morning, with police chiefs and the district attorneys and sheriffs from Santa Clara and Alameda counties, said his proposal would discourage criminals from wearing enhanced body armor to commit mass shootings.
"This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands," Honda said. "It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor."

Fortunately, it is incredibly tough to get just about anything accomplished in Congress these days, so the odds of this bill ever becoming law are probably pretty low.
But, without a doubt, those that are attempting to systematically disarm the American people will just keep on trying.
And we need to be vigilant, because history has shown what happens when entire populations are disarmed. All we have to do is look back at the millions that were killed under Nazi Germany or the tens of millions that were killed under the communist Chinese.
Of course one of the greatest examples of this phenomenon was what happened under Joseph Stalin, as Simon Black recently explained...

By the late 1920s, Joseph Stalin became the unchallenged leader of the Soviet Union after having eliminated his opposition.
He topped it off in 1929 by serving a decisive blow to anyone that would dare to oppose him by outlawing private gun ownership in the country.
From that year on until 1953 when Stalin died, it's estimated that more than 20 million Soviet citizens that were seen as a threat to the country's leadership.

Many Americans are tempted to believe that it is impossible for that kind of tyranny to happen in our day and age, but the truth of the matter is that America is becoming more like Nazi Germany with each passing day.
For example, the "Department of Homeland Security" recently raided dozens of families all over the nation because they "imported unsafe vehicles"...

Jennifer Brinkley of North Carolina says when saw a line of law enforcement vehicles coming up her driveway earlier this month she didn't know what to think. "I haven't done anything wrong."
According to WBTV, the Homeland Security agents were not there to take her away, they were looking for illegally imported Land Rover Defenders.
It was a task government officials were performing in several states in early July. Forums on defendersource.com contain posts from Defender owners claiming their vehicles were seized by the government.
Why?

All vehicles coming into the United States must meet U.S. safety and emissions standards. Many British manufactured Land Rover Defenders do not.

Why in the world are armed Homeland Security agents roaming the countryside hunting down vehicles that don't conform to federal regulations?
That is absolutely absurd.
But this is the kind of society that we now live in.
In a recent article, John W. Whitehead shared some more examples of how our control freak bureaucrats are ruining our society...

Debra Harrell, a 46-year-old South Carolina working mother, was arrested, charged with abandonment and had her child placed in state custody after allowing the 9-year-old to spend unsupervised time at a neighborhood playground while the mom worked a shift at McDonald's. Mind you, the child asked to play outside, was given a cell phone in case she needed to reach someone, and the park—a stone's throw from the mom's place of work—was overrun with kids enjoying its swings, splash pad, and shade.
A Connecticut mother was charged with leaving her 11-year-old daughter in the car unsupervised while she ran inside a store—despite the fact that the child asked to stay in the car and was not overheated or in distress. A few states away, a New Jersey man was arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of his children after leaving them in a car parked in a police station parking lot, windows rolled down, while he ran inside to pay a ticket.
A Virginia teenager was charged with violating the state's sexting law after exchanging sexually provocative videos with his girlfriend. Instead of insisting that the matter be dealt with as a matter of parental concern, police charged the boy with manufacturing and distributing child pornography and issued a search warrant to "medically induce an erection" in the 17-year-old boy in order to photograph his erect penis and compare it to the images sent in the sexting exchange. The police had already taken an initial photograph of the boy's penis against his will, upon his arrest.
In Georgia, a toddler had his face severely burned when a flash bang grenade, launched by a SWAT team during the course of a no-knock warrant, landed in his portable crib, detonating on his pillow. Also in Georgia, a police officer shot and killed a 17-year-old boy who answered the door, reportedly with a Nintendo Wii controller in his hands. The cop claimed the teenager pointed a gun at her, thereby justifying the use of deadly force. Then there was the incident wherein a police officer, responding to a complaint that some children were "chopping off tree limbs" creating "tripping hazards," pulled a gun on a group of 11-year-old boys who were playing in a wooded area, attempting to build a tree fort.

For many more examples like this, please see my previous article entitled "30 Signs That America Is Being Transformed Into A 'Big Brother' Police State."
The United States was supposed to be a beacon of liberty and freedom for the entire globe.
Instead, we are going to end up looking just like North Korea eventually if we are not careful.
Our freedoms and liberties are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day. And if the American people don't start standing up and objecting to all of this craziness, the control freaks are going to feel empowered to keep on pushing the envelope even further.
So what do you think about all of this? Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below...
Source
Get my new book about the future of America: The Beginning of the End.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.