Panel recommends denying “unsuitables” from acquiring firearms

Where have we heard the term “unsuitables” before? A nice way of putting it in denying gun rights to Americans. Keep your eye out for this term. Now I remember, the Nazis were keen on this term in defining those who live on our planet. Unsuitables.

Via NRO

Per Boston.com:

More than a year after the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., a panel of academic experts today released a long-awaited report recommending that Massachusetts tighten its gun laws, which are already considered among the toughest in the country.

The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used.

It recommended that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association help define a series of factors that could be used to prohibit “unsuitable persons” from acquiring firearms. The panel said the current process allows local law enforcement officials too much discretion to determine whether a person is suitable to be granted a license to carry.

This is your standard reactionary nonsense, guaranteed to have no effect in a state that already boasts some of the strongest gun-control laws in the United States and designed primarily to make people who know nothing about firearms feel better about themselves. But it is what comes next that should horrify one and all — regardless of their politics:

It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.

Let’s just repeat that, for clarity’s sake: Massachusetts is considering denying “gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.” In other words, an American state is thinking about denying a constitutional right to the innocent because they happen to have been picked up by authorities that couldn’t prove that they had done anything wrong.

More at  NRO

Gun permits more popular than Obamacare in Illinois

After the dreary post yesterday regarding Obama getting ready Executive orders to limit those who could purchase guns, Obama to tighten Gun Control for those who ever took an anxiety pill?  this is a bit of a pick me up. Take that Zero, and Eric Holder. Does anyone think we can get by this way without a major conflagration over this issue?

The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

On the first full day of an online sign-up, more than 4,500 concealed carry applicants gunned it to a state website to register for state permits, the Illinois State Police confirmed Monday.

Authorities have estimated 350,000 to 400,000 people will sign up for permits to carry their handguns in public within the first year of the law’s passing — close to 1,000 people a day.

Illinois is the last state to allow concealed carry. Legislators passed the law last summer after a federal appeals court ruled the state ban unconstitutional.

Obama to tighten Gun Control for those who ever took an anxiety pill?

We saw this freight train coming now didn’t we? So now Eric Holder and the DOJ will comb our prescription plans which they will secure from the Insurance company no doubt, and put everyone on the watch list who ever took a medication for a non physical condition. You betcha. Which is estimated to be about 25 percent of the population,

The Obama administration quietly released a press statement,

The Department of Justice is proposing to change rules for the federal background check system to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm because of mental health problems.

…..confirming President Obama will be signing two new executive actions defining who can buy a gun based on mental health issues.

Earlier this year, the State of New York used similar mental health regulations to classify anxiety as a mental health issue. Because of that, anyone who has ever reported feeling anxious could be at risk of losing their 2nd amendment rights. In fact, there are already a number of cases making their way through the court system in New York, where people actually lost their rights because they were prescribed anti-anxiety medications.

Since almost 25% of the population now takes anti-anxiety / depression medications, almost a quarter of the country could be at risk of being labeled mentally unfit to own a firearm, if these same policies take hold at a federal level.

They’ve already started going after Vets with these regulations.

The restrictions will try to limit who can buy a gun, based on past mental health issues. The new mental health restrictions, which are being enforced as regulations through the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, will allow the government to get around certain privacy laws so they can access your private medical records. It also allows them to yet again sidestep congress.

One of regulations allows the feds to access your private medical records to determine your “mental stability” in relation to owning a firearm. If you are found to be mentally unstable, the Justice Department can then deny your right to own a firearm.  But the problem really comes from who’s defining what “mentally unstable” actually means.

More and  H/T: goes to Off Grid Survival

Obama to sign U.N. Gun Treaty this month

Another dump, this time in August while everyone is looking the other way. Let us not let this one get ahead of us. We know our Senators can be bribed. After all, they just got their “waiver” from Obama from the “Affordable Care Act” – what a joke.

In April the United Nations passed sweeping legislation that will regulate the international arms trade and could lead to a national registry in the United States.

Barack Obama is reportedly going to sign the treaty this month while Congress is on vacation. Ammoland reported:

You heard it straight from the horse’s mouth. Jay Carney said Obama will sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty “before the end of August…We believe it’s in the interest of the United States.” This is very strategic timing considering Congress is on a 5 week vacation lasting thru the month of August!

These back door tactics are nothing new for the Obama Administration, which is why we are using tactics of our own to stop his anti-gun agenda. We have the home fax numbers of every Senator so while they are absent from the Capitol we can demand they must not ratify the UN Gun Treaty once Obama signs it.

We CAN stop this international treaty from reaching American soil by killing it the United States Senate. The U.S Senate must ratify an international treaty for it to be effective. They would need 67 votes to ratify the treaty. Reach every U.S. Senator at their home office; tell them you do not want this treaty in OUR United States!

Select Here To Fax The U.S. Senate At Their Home Offices:

Demand They KEEP THEIR TREATY AWAY FROM OUR GUNS -

DO NOT Ratify The UN ‘Arms Trade Treaty’!

Everything Obama tackles in office is strategically timed and politically motivated. He only looks out for himself, his fellow liberals, and his anti-gun agenda. After mass shootings the Administration would launch all-out attacks on our gun rights since the country would be more susceptible to change after a traumatic event. He made sure the Benghazi cover up was swept under the rug until he got re-elected. He will wait to attack certain issues until the 2014 Congressional elections so he’ll know how many liberals are by his side.

Obama believes now is the best time to sign the UN Gun Treaty since Congress is out of Washington. He will have less scrutiny to worry about if Congress is not nearby.

In a January 4, 2013 Justice Department document, Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies, the Obama Administration admitted that an assault weapons ban would not be effective without confiscation and gun registration. bo gun buyback

It should be clear by now that this administration has little to no regard for the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Gateway Pundit

The feared Pressure Cooker – Will Feinstein ban?

Of course we knew this was coming, But the Senator from Tennessee was going to have none of it with Piers Morgan. Tenn. Senator Asks Piers Morgan When He’s Moving Back To England.

A Tennessee state senator is being slammed for insensitivity to the Boston Marathon bombing victims after posting an illustration of a pressure cooker – like the ones used in last week’s deadly attack – to mock gun control advocates.

Republican Stacey Campfield posted an illustrated image of an “Assault Pressure Cooker” on his personal blog Camp4u on Sunday.

“Here comes Feinstein again” he titled the post in a reference to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who authored an assault weapons ban in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

‘Here comes Feinstein again’ was the title of Campfield's controversial blog post.

Read more: NY Daily News

Western Journalism:

CNN host Piers Morgan more than met his match in Tennessee Sen. Stacey Campfield Wednesday night. At the close of the interview, the state lawmaker asked Morgan, “Now that gun control has failed, Piers, I’m wondering when are you going to move back to England?”

Gun Control’s Trojan Horse to be voted on Thursday, April 11

The Senate’s top Democrat says he will force a vote Thursday on whether to open debate on tougher gun laws. Another monstrosity that does not come up through committees, without hearings.

What we do know, is that the ACLU has found enough to be concerned: ACLU attacks Reid’s Gun Law, cites Privacy and Civil Liberties.  One of the major concerns is the background checks that seem to be the most likely to pass. Presently, almost all information obtained in the check is thrown out in 24 hours. There is nothing proposed that would include this 24 hour provision. So your background check information could be retained forever thus by de facto be gun registration.

Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “

“As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”
“And existing law also bars the use of those records for other purposes,” Calabrese continued, explaining that the government is supposed to be barred by the Privacy Act from transferring database information between agencies without the consent of the individual citizen.

Search as I may for any new information on the gun control bill , I found nothing. Nada. After listening to a rousing and stirring rant by Mark Levin on  the subject, the only thing I can offer is a Mark Levin archive of his program at his website done last night, and I encourage everyone who cares one wit about the subject, to listen to the first minutes, It can be found here for the date April 9, 2013. Scroll  down to audio rewind. 04/09 The Mark Levin Show

Here is a short clip to get you in the mood to hear the full thing:

 

 WASHINGTON — A bipartisan deal seems imminent on expanding background checks to more gun buyers, an agreement that could build support for President Barack Obama’s drive to curb firearms violence.

 Meanwhile, the Senate is ready for an opening vote on restricting guns as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set a roll call for Thursday on starting consideration of the firearms legislation. Odds are growing that Democrats will win enough Republican support to thwart an effort by conservatives and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to block consideration from even starting.

H/T:Heraldonline

ACLU attacked Reid’s gun law, cites privacy and civil liberties

UPDATE

My modem is down, so have not been able to post. keep in mind, the ACLU was opposed to the gun bill. So while everyone is in a tizzy about the NRA… These are the facts. Here is a repost ..trying to do it from my iPad.

While the talking heads seem to blow off any concern about universal background checks as nothing serious and the “at least” we can do, it is a trojan horse according to the ACLU as they looked at the Reid bill that is floating around in the Senate.

Recent surveys indicate the vast majority of Americans appear to be ok with this. The Daily Caller has a post that gives us a heads up. Let’s not fall asleep on this one. Here we go: As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have “serious concerns” about the bill. The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday

. “The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.” “[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,”

Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.” “As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.” “And existing law also bars the use of those records for other purposes,” Calabrese continued, explaining that the government is supposed to be barred by the Privacy Act from transferring database information between agencies without the consent of the individual citizen. “Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.” “And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes,”

Calabrese said. “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.” “So you just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.” “

Regulations … shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee,” according to the bill. The ACLU’s second “significant concern” with Reid’s legislation is that it too broadly defines the term “transfer,” creating complicated criminal law that law-abiding Americans may unwittingly break. “[I]t’s certainly a civil liberties concern,” Calabrese told TheDC. “You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law.” “They don’t intend to transfer a gun or they don’t think that’s what they’re doing, but under the law they can be defined as making a transfer. We think it’s important that anything that is tied to a criminal sanction be easy to understand and avoid allowing too much prosecutorial discretion.” “For example, different gun ranges are treated differently,” Calabrese said. “You’re firing a firearm in one geographic location, you’re OK, but in another, you’re not. And those kind things, it’s going to be hard for your average consumer to really internalize and figure out the difference.” “Criminal sanctions shouldn’t hinge on those kinds of differences,” he said. Separate from the ACLU’s concerns with a universal background check system, Calabrese flagged another provision of the legislation invented by Sen. Boxer that the ACLU is “worried about” — school tiplines for the reporting of “potentially dangerous students” “We’re worried about this tip line,” Calabrese admitted. “We think we already have a phone number for reporting dangerous situations — it’s called 9-1-1.” “The tip line doesn’t have any guidance for who should be included, how we should vet these requests, who should be included in the system, what you should do with this information once you get it,” he warned. “It just seems like a dangerously unregulated avenue that’s going to risk pushing more kids into the criminal justice system.” “What’s a school supposed to do if they get an anonymous phone call that some kid is dangerous?” Calabrese went on. “How are they supposed to treat that? Do they have liability if they ignore it? Should this kid be suspended? Or should he be scrutinized by a school safety officer because of an anonymous tip?” Read more: Daily Caller Here is where the information will remain: Filmed from Redwood Road, you can see the progress of the NSA’s Utah Data Center also called the NSA Spy Center FROM:  NSA Spy Center Revealed: 100 years worth of data

Biden and the shotgun – so much better! (Humor)

 This video compares the use of AR-15 to a shotgun by the little lady! After Biden explains the advantage of using a shotgun, a demonstration is given. Which one would you prefer? Keep in mind there are plenty of women who know how to shoot and have been given proper training.

George Orwell’s final warning and other historical facts

I found the essay and video that follows over at Adriennes’s blog. Matt Bracken: Democide the elimination of a despised group by a government. It is a long essay, but one to save for the historical record. There is no better explanation for the 2nd amendment, and what can go wrong when we lose this right. But first, a short clip from Orwell, and then a clip from the post.

From the 2003 Television docudrama: George Orwell – A Life in Pictures

I’m taking Matt Bracken at his word:

Matt Bracken | February 20, 2013 at 10:10

Please share the essay and video as widely as possible on RKBA and other freedomista blogs and websites. Copy it all, save it all, I expect a serious effort by the commie rat bastards to squelch this message, especially the video.

H/T Western Rifle Shooters Association Warning, disturbing pictures.

 

Matt Bracken: Democide the elimination of a despised group by a government.

Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes. Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the 20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars during that period.

The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, when the Turkish government decided to eliminate the country’s Christian minority, primarily ethnic Armenians and Greeks who had Turkish roots extending back to before the Islamic conquest. Two million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.

The Armenian Genocide, as it has become known, was also widely known inside Turkey, where the majority Muslim population either supported or at least passively tolerated the democide. It was impossible to miss the sight of thousands of Christians at a time being rounded up and force-marched through towns and into the burning deserts on one-way trips.

Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s henchmen purged millions of “kulaks” (farmers deemed to have too much wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had ever traveled outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.

In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own “final solution to the Jewish problem.” Where the German national socialists simply eliminated Jews as quickly as possible in mass graves and gas chambers, Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.

Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent victims were added to his totals. In Communist China seventy million people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.

Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it. (I strongly recommend reading Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen, to fully appreciate the wholehearted German support for the Jewish democide.)

Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.

In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.

The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant resistance.

In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. If the Jews had not first been disarmed, using previous gun registration lists as a map for confiscation, the Holocaust would not have been possible.

Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was preceded by “reasonable and commonsense” firearms registration, followed eventually by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a despised minority population.

During the past two centuries, while America has avoided tyranny, Turkey, Germany, Russia and the other nations mentioned above have spasmodically lurched between monarchs, democratically elected leaders, and often quite popular dictators, allowing them frequent opportunities to commit democide against their unwanted minorities.

The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not “grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.

“Pure democracy” has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on their dinner plans. The two wolves might see this election as an expression of their highest democratic values, but for the outnumbered sheep, pure democracy is highly problematic. On the other hand, a republic has been described as two wolves and a well-armed sheep voting on dinner plans. The well-armed sheep can veto the outcome of the dinner election simply by brandishing its firearm. The sheep has inherent rights as a sovereign individual, including the right to self-defense, a right that cannot be stripped away by a simple majority vote.

So, when a democratically elected American president speaks of “fundamentally transforming” his country, and of his need to act outside the constitutional framework, the population should be on guard. When that leader begins to push for strict new “commonsense and reasonable” gun control laws, including national firearms registration in the name of “public safety,” the citizenry should be on high alert.

Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.

The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the 20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as “commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws.

While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government pogroms.

American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed. Ask yourself: Were the Armenians, the Jews or the kulaks treated better, or worse, after they were disarmed and rendered helpless by their oppressors, who thereafter held an absolute government monopoly on armed violence? The answer is too obvious to require elaboration.

Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing—for now.

But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other “progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot execute their historically standard final solution to the “reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans, disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no matter what.

Unlike the Armenians, Jews, kulaks and other exterminated peoples, Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B “delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”

If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”

You want our guns? Then come and take them!

No registration—no confiscation—no extermination!

Freedom now, freedom forever!  

Obama works to purge online opponents

Under the guise of curbing the “radicalization” of U.S. citizens and identifying and purging potentially violent persons from the Internet, the White House has initiated the creation of a new interagency working group to address what it calls a growing problem.

When I read this, I thought now, just who is it they want to purge? Now that Obama and crowd are purging or reassigning the military leadership themselves- The dissapearing Generals- of those who disagree with our “Emperor”, it makes sense. It reminded me of the post West Point Think Tank warns of dangerous “Conservatives”

The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.” And just who are these “Violent Far-Right” folks?

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

Now that we have this point cleared up, let’s get on to the story.

The White House issued a fact sheet delineating the broad objectives of the plan.

The interagency group will be headed by Quintan Wiktorowicz, the current White House senior director for community partnerships on the national security staff. The new group will be called The Interagency Working Group to Counter Online Radicalization and will be charged with the implementation of an Internet safety program to address online violent extremism.

Wiktorowiczs stated,

Violent extremist groups ─ like Al Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents, violent supremacist groups, and violent “sovereign citizens” ─ are leveraging online tools and resources to propagate messages of violence and division. These groups use the Internet to disseminate propaganda, identify and groom potential recruits, and supplement their real-world recruitment efforts. Some members and supporters of these groups visit mainstream fora to see whether individuals might be recruited or encouraged to commit acts of violence, look for opportunities to draw targets into private exchanges, and exploit popular media like music videos and online video games. Although the Internet offers countless opportunities for Americans to connect, it has also provided violent extremists with access to new audiences and instruments for radicalization.”

The Obama Administration has already caused the alarm bells to ring on several occasions as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released several internal memos referring to conservative Christians who believe the Bible, pro-life citizens who are against abortion, Tea Party activists, and political conservatives who believe in a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution as “potential homegrown terrorists.”

And in the current gun rights debate, sovereign citizens have gone on the record to oppose the Obama administration’s all-out assault on the Second Amendment, vowing to disobey any law that would violate their unfettered rights to keep and bear firearms.. More at Examiner

Just a reminder for old times sake about defining a “Terrorist”. By the way, Paul’s amendment was defeated.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 749 other followers

%d bloggers like this: