Tag Archives: gun control

Supreme Court has made confiscation of firearms a breeze

By Doug Book, editor

Last year, Democrat Senator Ed Markey (NY) and Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (Mass) introduced legislation suggesting Barack Obama’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) be paid $10 million/year to fund “…research on gun violence prevention and firearm safety.” According to the far left Markey, “it is time we study the issue of gun violence like the public health crisis that it is. If we want to prevent injury and deaths from guns, we need to know what can be done to prevent it.”

Truth be told, Markey and Maloney believe the best way to prevent gun violence is by making it illegal or at the very least, impossible, to own a gun. Maloney recently introduced legislation which would require all gun owners purchase liability insurance for their firearms and pay a $10,000 fine should they be discovered without it. Naturally, members of law enforcement would be exempt.

“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” said Maloney. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.” Only a leftist would claim that liability insurance is necessary to make gun owners exercise appropriate caution with their firearms.

Each year, about 60% of gun deaths are the result of suicide. Would Maloney demand insurance companies pay off in cases of suicide? Would a suicide “victim’s” estate be charged the $10,000 fine if he was found to have been uninsured?

As to “fair compensation” in the event of a crime or accident, it is rumored that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by criminals. The odds against thieves, killers or rapists carrying liability insurance on their stolen firearm would be astronomical. Will Maloney recommend Progressive or The General provide “no fault” gun insurance, just in case? And would that absolve the criminal of guilt for having committed the crime, or just for having used a gun?

Perhaps the real question is why Representative Maloney believed it necessary to introduce this legislation in the first place. The nation’s hoplophobes have already been given the ultimate, winning hand against gun owners.

In 2012, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the federal government may demand the American people purchase a required item and tax anyone who refuses. Last month, Roberts and 5 other justices decided that the president, the Internal Revenue Service, even the Court itself may write, re-write and implement legislation. An act of Congress is no longer necessary, conflicting claims in the Constitution of the United States notwithstanding.

Given these recent rulings by the Roberts Court–the first on ObamaCare, the second in King v Burwell–Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will have the authority to create legislation demanding the purchase of a $1 million liability policy by every gun owner, for every gun owned. Those who refuse could be taxed the sum of, say,  $100,000 for each uninsured firearm. Simple and legal, at least according to the Court. And for those unwilling to either pay up or relinquish their weapons, Barack and the Supremes will confiscate their house!

Though such abuse of the American people may not happen over night, rest assured that it WILL happen.

 

Lies and Gun Grabbers, Part 2

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

Why is it that those who demand tolerance for every sexual perversion and every abomination inspired by a “religion” have an hysterical reaction to firearms? I would bet most individuals hyper-critical of guns have never fired one and wouldn’t wish to if given the chance. Their aversion to even rationally discussing the subject of firearms borders on the pathological.

A true standout of the hoplophobe community is sfgate blogger, Mark Morford. Mr. Morford has gun owners all figured out and is eager to share his insights with the rest of the world.

I laughed loudly after reading what this smug, self-important, anti-gun zealot said about gun owners. See how many of Morford’s descriptions of the average gun owner apply to you. Be honest now:

You are a scared white male; you don’t live near a university or large city; you have never traveled, you don’t read books, you don’t like change; you think Obama is a “scary black president,” (scary because he’s Black, not because he is a power-hungry, America-hating Marxist).

This is how Morford views gun owners. I assume that he will be highly disappointed when he discovers the fastest growing segment of the gun owning public is young, urban females. Equally crushing will be the results of a 2014 Gallup Poll revealing 54% of gun owners to be Black or otherwise non-White. Back to the drawing board for Mr. Morford.

Although gun rights are expanding in a majority of the 50 states, the administration is still working to implement gun control legislation incrementally. Obama, along with hoplophobe alarmists like Bloomberg, Blumenthal and Feinstein, to name a few, is attempting to have the State Department implement new rules Published in the June 3rd Federal Register, making it a crime to discuss firearms or ammo on the internet. My first question is, what does this have to do with the State Department? And secondly, what makes this administration think that the patriots who own guns in this country will allow them to so blithely trample our First Amendment rights?

The intent of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizenry from the government. When the Constitution was ratified, it was assumed that a militia involved all those who were able to bear arms. In addition to defending towns and the nation, the duty of a militia was to help defend citizens from a tyrant. If the government became tyrannical, it was up to the militia to make things right.

This is why progressives want a “living” Constitution and Bill of Rights. For “living” means changeable and NOT according to the methods set down in the Constitution. The left prefer to make uncomplicated, wholesale changes to any portion of our liberties as enumerated. They don’t want the American people to know that the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right of the people, not of the states and certainly not of the federal government.

Lies and Gun Grabbers

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

We are an enlightened people who tend to do what is best for ourselves, our family and ultimately our nation. Our inalienable—that is, God given—rights form the most important part of our Constitution and have been ingrained in the psyche of the American people. The Second Amendment has stood the test of time even though it has been under attack from progressives for as long as I can remember.

In the past, there has been concern for individuals who owned guns, and this concern has reached a fever pitch. Congress was right to cut funding from the ATF to stop such regulations as banning the importation of some firearms and ammunition. It was also appropriate that Congress should make it illegal for the ATF to create a national gun registry.

The ATF has become one of the most lawless of federal bureaucracies thanks to its unending persecution of law abiding American gun owners. It was ATF agents who managed Operation Fast and Furious, an Obama/Holder project designed to convince the American public that new and more stringent gun control measures were necessary. The ATF is directly responsible for the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, yet no charges have been filed, no agents removed.

Why are radical, gun control advocates intent upon the implementation of legislation which will have no positive effect against crime or criminals? They concoct regulations that make absolutely no sense, like 10 round magazine restrictions. Don’t they understand that someone meaning to do a great amount of harm will just carry more magazines?

The “assault weapons” ban, based solely on cosmetics, lasted 10 years and had no effect whatever on crime or the murder rate. One weapon with a bayonet holder is considered an assault weapon, whereas the same weapon without, is perfectly legal. Yet none of it matters because so called “assault weapons” are simply not-and never have been-the criminal’s weapon of choice.

I have always had a difficult time getting around the words “gun control.” Though a cliche, it is true that guns do not need to be controlled, people do. Guns are used by law abiding citizens for personal security, hunting, target shooting and self-defense. Gun grabbers realize that criminals will gain access to firearms regardless of “gun control” legislation. That’s why they are criminals. They do things which are against the law! Yet not one proposed piece of legislation targets the criminal. They are all directed at the law abiding gun owner. Why is that the case?

Now that he has no more elections to face, Barack Obama has directed his DOJ to come forward with numerous regulations to be implemented before his reign of incompetence is over. Rules concerning everything from the availability of high powered ammunition to storage requirements for firearms in the home will be forced on citizens, undoubtedly without Congressional approval.

There are regulations with which everyone would agree, such as keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable. But even here, the administration goes too far. Veterans are being singled out, having their guns taken away for such things as visiting a VA psychologist for minor depression. If a member of your family passes away, the ATF has gone to houses requesting the guns owned by that person. You can’t pass them on to family members, you can’t sell them, they belong to the government.

In California, guns may be legally confiscated for a “thought crime” based on hearsay. There will be no opportunity to face one’s accusers except in a court of law, after the fact. The “accused” must prove his innocence to the satisfaction of his accusers.

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) wants the American people to believe that holders of a concealed carry license pose a threat to the public. Yet this organization, whose members suffer an attack of the vapors upon seeing anyone in public with a gun, is unlikely to admit that holders of a Concealed Carry license belong to one of the most law abiding groups of citizens in the nation.

For decades, America’s gun owners have faced lies and threats from hoplophobes. It will not end, it will not get better and the nation’s gun grabbers have no interest in facts. Should there be a 2nd American Revolution it will involve those who relish freedom and those who wish to permanently end it. Guns will play the key role for those interested in preserving liberty.

John Velisek USN (Ret.)
Twitter: sjspecialist
Facebook.com/onepatriotsopinion

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