Tag Archives: gun control

Disarm young Blacks says Bloomberg. It’s for their own good

By Doug Book, editor

Be it New York’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel or the Windy City’s decades of the Mayors Daley, Democrat politicians have shown no genuine interest in Blacks apart from the support they are expected to deliver on Election Day. Like a 2 year old at a dinner party, it is the proper and expected role of big city minorities to be seen—if absolutely necessary—but certainly not heard.

Unfortunately, Blacks are bound to be seen and heard when 400 to 500 murders are committed each year on Chicago’s West and South sides. That’s the sort of trend that causes panic in the Mayor’s office, for although the vast majority of victims of black criminals are also black, it is only a matter of time until white neighborhoods are affected. And whether in Chicago or New York, that may eventually result in the most unacceptable crime of all; a Democrat mayor being tossed from office!

But former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has the answer. Zeroing in on black males aged 15 to 25, Bloomberg has decided that “cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive.”  Ninety Five percent of murders are committed by this “specific category,” claims Bloomberg. So just disarm these people and society will be doing a great favor to minorities across the nation. That is, the killers will be spared facing a bullet from police or hostile gang members one day and other blacks, who make up the majority of victims, may also live to see old age.

It’s a win-win any way you look at it.  And all it requires is sending SWAT teams into black neighborhoods for the purpose of confiscating weapons.  Simple. And best of all, no one will complain; or at least no one of any particular importance. After all, as a lifelong leftist Bloomberg will not face charges of racism. And  SWAT team members will be removing weapons—and probably the occasional black thug—from the streets. The Obama/Schumer/Feinstein gun grabbing gambit come true and all for the greater good, exactly as the left likes to represent its most devious and reprehensible activities. Michael, you’re a genius.

But it’s funny Bloomberg didn’t put his plan into action while he was Mayor. Certainly he had ample time, what with the number of legal and illegal terms of office he purchased over the years. And surely the risk of annoying a few black voters with the 3:00 A.M. demolition of their front door wouldn’t dissuade Bloomberg from doing something so important, so utterly for the good of his subjects.

Do us all a favor, Mr. Bloomberg, and accompany one of your SWAT teams as they enforce your vision of the greater good on Chicago’s South Side. It might wind up being the greatest service you could provide for the American people.

Sources:

http://www.vdare.com/posts/bloomberg-on-the-real-target-of-gun-control-black-males-15-to-25

http://danaloeschradio.com/michael-bloomberg-we-need-to-disarm-minorities

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies. Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com  

 

 

 

 

Will Obama use the unratified Arms Trade Treaty to undermine the 2nd Amendment?

 

By Doug Book, editor

Among the terms of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are the following mandatory provisions:

1.) Civilians are not permitted to “own, buy, sell, trade or transfer” “[any] means of armed resistance including handguns.”

2.) Also prohibited is the ownership of ammunition/munitions.

3.) All countries participating in the Arms Trade Treaty “shall establish and maintain a National Control System” with a list of all weapons including “their current owners.”

This makes the registration of all firearms–that is,  the National Arms Registry dreamed of by American liberals–a Treaty requirement. The registry will be used to enforce the prohibition against civilian ownership of firearms by making certain all gun owners have surrendered their firearms to the state. What the far left has been unable to accomplish at either the state or federal level has become possibly by means of International Law applying to all nations which have ratified the ATT. Should the U.S. Senate ratify the Treaty, each provision would ostensibly assume the force of law in the U.S. as well.

However, just as Harry Reid made it clear that the present Democrat-controlled Senate would not ratify the ATT, a particularly important fact will also prevent any future anti-gun Senate ratifying the Treaty. Two centuries of precedent and the decision in a number of Supreme Court cases have determined that no law may be passed in the United States which conflicts with or serves to change the Constitution. The terms of the Arms Trade Treaty obviously disagree with the 2nd Amendment. That being the case, the Constitution must either be radically altered or the Treaty rewritten. Neither of these is likely to take place.

But why would Barack Obama send delegations to 5 years of Treaty conferences, making certain the document language met Administration approval, if the Treaty terms could not be imposed on the American public even if the document were at some point ratified?

“The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international law on treaties between states.” Sometimes described as the Treaty of Treaties, it was adopted in May 1969 and entered into force in January of 1980.

Under Article 18 of the Convention, “…a State which has signed or ratified a treaty has the obligation to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of that treaty prior to its entry into force.”

The written Object and Purpose of the ATT:

Object and Purpose: The Object of this treaty is to—Establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms. Prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion;

For the Purpose of—Contributing to international and regional peace, stability and security; Reducing human suffering; Promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible action by States Parties in the international trade in conventional arms, thereby building confidence among States Parties.

The question is whether the signature of Barack Obama or his agent John Kerry binds the United States by International Law “to not defeat the object and purpose” of the Arms Trade Treaty?

If so, could this entail a calculated scheme by which Obama might claim to be “compelled” to implement the terms of the treaty so as to avoid defeating the treaty’s object and purpose? For example, could Obama bring into play the treaty term calling for a national arms registry, claiming it was absolutely necessary to avoid doing harm to the purpose of the treaty?

I don’t know the legal answer to question. But I do know that, as the most corrupt president in the nation’s history, Barack Obama is capable of implementing any underhanded or illegal scheme he believes he might get away with. And he would undoubtedly go to any lengths to manufacture a method by which he could undermine the 2nd Amendment.

Will this administration spend the next months working to impose terms of an unconstitutional treaty on the American public?

Sources: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/10/03/constitution-vs-un-arms-treaty/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties

https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf

http://www.libertygunrights.com/2TreatySet10Pgs.pdf

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2517&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dunratified%2Btreaties%252C%2Bdomestic%2Bpolitics%26form%3DPRUSEN%26pc%3DAV01%26mkt%3Den-us%26refig%3Df5a8d567fbea420cbcafd9f2eaf5a93a%26pq%3Dunratified%2Btreaties%252C%2Bdomestic%2Bpolitics%26sc%3D0-23%26sp%3D-1%26qs%3Dn%26sk%3D%26cvid%3Df5a8d567fbea420cbcafd9f2eaf5a93a#search=%22unratified%20treaties%2C%20domestic%20politics%22

 Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com

 

 

John Kerry claims Arms Trade Treaty will not “diminish freedom”

 

By Doug Book, editor

While signing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in September of last year, Secretary of State John Kerry made statements worthy of his corrupt past and of the venal, power hungry nature of his boss in the White House.

Kerry’s first claim: “I want to be clear both about what this treaty is, but I also want to be clear about what it isn’t. This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors…”

The second Kerry second claim: “I also want to be clear about what this treaty is not about. This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes…”

The Secretary then manages this statement while keeping a straight face: “Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans, the rights of American citizens, to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution…”

In his first claim, Secretary Kerry provides no portrait of the “terrorists and rogue actors” the Arms Trade Treaty will work to disarm. Some years ago, then Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano defined likely terrorists as Americans who own guns, support the 2nd Amendment, celebrate the Constitution, contribute to conservative candidates or parties and are pro-life. These clearly “perverse” individuals earned the title of “domestic” terrorist from an Administration which has labored hard to discredit and disarm them. Of course no one believes these law abiding citizens to be “rogue actors” but Obama and friends.

As to Secretary Kerry’s next claim, it’s comforting to know that the ATT “will not diminish anyone’s freedom” as long as firearms are obtained, possessed and used for “legitimate purposes.” Unfortunately it’s a safe bet that legitimacy will be defined by the Obama Administration or the equally anti-gun United Nations.

Shortly after the Newtown murders, legislators in Connecticut and New York decided that some 1.5 million owners of so-called “assault weapons” were apparently not using their firearms for “legitimate purposes.” But when politicians demanded these weapons be registered or turned over to the state, an estimated 80% of owners refused to do so, while large numbers of law enforcement officers refused to enforce the knee-jerk legislation.

But gun owners won’t have such an easy time flouting the ATT when its terms make criminals of them. For unlike the New York and Connecticut statutes, the Treaty states “If a United Nations member state cannot get rid of privately owned, small arms legislatively…any guns or ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized and destroyed by UN peacekeeping forces.”

That’s right—armed, UN forces will tour the United States for the purpose of confiscating firearms from recalcitrant gun owners. What could possibly go wrong, unless Americans start laughing out loud at those intimidating sky blue helmets. 

Finally, we have Secretary Kerry’s solemn promise that the Obama Regime “would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans;” rights, that is, which are “guaranteed under our Constitution.” This is such obvious nonsense coming from an Obama mouthpiece there’s no point in discussing it.

The Obama Follies have no business occupying Coach is Right on Christmas. On December 26th we’ll decide whether the terms of a treaty—any treaty—may preempt the language of the Constitution or the laws which are derived from it. Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court claiming terms of the ATT should take precedence over rights codified in the Constitution. In similar cases, the Court has ruled each time in favor of the Constitution.

Two hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

The better question might be whether Obama will obey the ruling should it come down against him!

              A Merry Christmas from everyone at Coach is Right

Sources:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/14057/senate-tells-obama-implementing-un-arms-trade-treaty/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

http://bearingarms.com/kerry-signs-un-arms-trade-treaty-despite-objections/

http://bearingarms.com/new-york-gun-owners-law-enforcement-invite-governor-cuomo-to-learn-the-acronym-gfys/

http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/30/doj-says-un-treaty-trumps-us-constitution/

 

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

Why does the left keep aiming at our guns?

By Doug Book, editor

In 1996, Washington Post reporter and FOX News’ faux-conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer wrote “…the [Clinton Administration’s] assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.  Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . .  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”

Of course, Krauthammer soon learned that the American people cannot be “desensitized” to the left’s arrogant enterprises of would-be gun theft.  On the contrary, recent in-your-face efforts by gun control zealots to force gun owners into 2nd Amendment defeatism have inevitably resulted in defiance, not submission.  The unparalleled explosion in gun sales upon the installation of Barack Hussein in the White House, the absolute refusal to appease the left after New Town and the unexpected appearance of armed freedom fighters at the Bundy ranch; all have served to give provide the nation’s Krauthammers with a real education.

And today the left is faced with what may be its greatest fear—a serious, firearm owning public which has drawn a line in the sand that a gun grabbing government is not permitted to cross.

But why did the government choose this fight? Why did a battle over 2nd Amendment guarantees take on the seeming appearance of life and death to the American left? Was the Democrat Party somehow convinced disarming the American people would be an easy win? Did Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein really believe a coupling of the left’s laughable “nobody wants to take your gun” mantra with a professed “common sense” approach to gun control had actually fooled the nation’s gun owners?

Anyone who believes liberal claims of heartbreak over 19,000 annual firearm suicides or even the yearly average of about 250 youngsters accidently killed by mishandled guns must first ask how the left can abhor these numbers yet celebrate some 1 million annual abortions.

In 2010, the FBI reported 8,874 firearm homicides in the United States. In 2011, the number was 8,583. Of these homicides, as many as half—and depending upon location, sometimes far more—are committed by gang members. As of 2011 there were some 1.4 million active gang members in the United States comprising 33,000 different gangs. The FBI determined gangs to be responsible for “…an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others.” This means the American left has spent decades doing everything in its power to trample the Constitution and disarm the American public, all for the prevention of some 4,300 deaths.

Does anyone really believe that Democrats and other dedicated gun grabbers can get all broken up over 4,300 shootings?

Sources:

http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm       Krauthammer. Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet.  WaPo, April 5, 1996.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#Executive

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

 

Court rules Florida doctors may NOT harass patients about gun ownership

By Doug Book, editor

In 2011, the State of Florida passed a law popularly referred to as “Docs vs Glocks” which prevents doctors meddling in the gun ownership prerogatives of their patients. Why would such a statute be necessary?

The following is a portion of a policy statement included on the website of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

“Until handguns are banned, we recommend that handguns and handgun ammunition be regulated, that restrictions be placed on handgun ownership, and that the number of privately owned handguns be reduced. Firearms should be removed from the environments where children live and play …”

Uppermost in the AAP’s “Advice to Parents” column was:

“Never have a gun in the home. Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun. Remove all guns present in the home.”

Not widely known by the American public (principally because it was effectively concealed) is the fact that Barack Obama’s 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—or Stimulus slush fund–opened the private medical records of American citizens to some 1.5 million new organizations, companies, individuals and of course, federal bureaucracies. The Stimulus allocated thirty five billion dollars to finance the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) which made patient medical data available on ObamaCare’s State Exchanges. As a result, the supposedly PRIVATE, “it’s for the children” information collected by doctors about patient gun ownership may be legally accessed by 2.2 million government approved organizations, many of which have nothing whatever to do with healthcare.  

Agenda driven doctors are not practitioners of medicine but of medical espionage. And Florida’s doctors have been among the most persistent in ferreting out and reporting “medical information” about gun ownership to state and federal bureaucracies. Consider that a patient recommended to a psychologist by his GP for treatment of depression may well have his right to own a firearm rescinded by the government. After all, the patient’s volatile state of mind makes him a potential assassin. And Heaven forbid there be children in this dangerous individual’s home!
 
“We take our children to physicians for medical care, not moral judgment, political harassment and privacy intrusions,” writes Luke McCoy of the USA Carry website.

McCoy continues:

“The intent of some [physicians] may be to stop death from firearms accidents, but it is worth noting that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, doctors and medical staffs in Florida are responsible for six times more accidental deaths (called “Medical Misadventures”) than firearms accidents. Physicians have plenty of room to work in their own backyards to stop accidental deaths in keeping with their “first do no harm” medical oaths.”  

Clearly the intent of doctors who pass moral judgment on gun owners is NOT the prevention of accidents but rather the disarming of the American public. It was the numerous cases of Florida’s anti-gun doctors harassing patients, withholding treatment, even refusing to see the children of parents unwilling to answer questions about gun ownership that prompted the Doc’s v Glocks legislation.

On July 25th, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision which had found the Doc’s legislation unconstitutional. The American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Family Physicians in Florida agreed with the dissenting 11th Circuit judge who called the law “an infringement of First Amendment rights.”  Does a pediatrician have a 1st Amendment right to demand parents leave an examining room so he might grill a 5 year old about whether or not his father owns a gun?

Doctor’s groups are certain to appeal the decision or ask for an en banc review by the 11th Circuit. Should either succeed, it’s my guess that gun owners will dump an agenda-driven doctor before they dump their guns.

Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-court-upholds-flas-docs-glocks-law-24720950

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/7/appellate-court-upholds-privacy-law-tells-anti-gun-doctors-to-take-a-powder.aspx

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/marion-hammer-what-docs-vs-glocks-is-really-about/#axzz39LJKo98D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

http://www.cchfreedom.org/cchf.php/734#.U9-nZLHLIuI

https://www.usacarry.com/stop-doctors-violating-patients-gun-privacy-rights-in-florida/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/30/appeal-planned-for-florida-docs-vs-glocks-laws/