Oh yeah. ;)

Some good news for a change - complete article at link below.

DECEMBER 10, 2014
Growing Public Support for Gun Rights
More Say Guns Do More to Protect Than Put People at Risk

Pew Research:

"For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.

Support for gun rights has edged up from earlier this year, and marks a substantial shift in attitudes since shortly after the Newtown school shootings, which occurred two years ago this Sunday."

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/...or-gun-rights/

It's also nice to know that the level of "sheeple" in the United States is dropping.

Or that demographic was too busy rioting to participate in the poll.

http://www.saf.org/?p=4877

To the Citizens of Washington State and Their American Countrymen
 

Thought this would be an appropriate location for Patrick Henry Society's letter RE their upcoming event on 7 February.

Other information here.

Fed Ban on Interstate Transfers UNConstitutional
 

Anything but SCOTUS never seems to be the final word (and maybe not then) but this is good to read about.

Never heard of this guy but the vid below gives me an excuse to bump a great thread for some newer members.

The 2nd Amendment : For Muskets Only?!
"People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn't apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?"

StevenCrowder
Published on Feb 10, 2015

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s

Probably one of the best presentations/testimony I've heard yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdUaPDiW-GY

He's speaking in reference to the current attempt to remove the "may issue" restrictions in the state of Maryland. With his background as Commander of the licensing division responsible for issuing permits and his self-professed previous status as being in favor of gun control, his testimony has to carry a lot of weight.

An "enlightened" liberal cop...... only a few million to go.....

Gun Speach Gag Order
 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/10/...vt-last-month/



The Obama administration’s latest anti-gun salvo isn’t about reducing gun violence or stopping the export of dangerous weapons, it’s about pure retaliation against a non-profit that sued the government in federal court last month.


Defense Distributed, a pro-Second Amendment non-profit organization that provides blueprints, plans, and machinery to fabricate or finish firearm components, has been at war with the State Department for nearly two years.......

and..

On June 3, just four weeks after Defense Distributed filed its complaint in federal court, the State Department suddenly decided to propose a new rule giving it the authority to pre-approve speech related to publicly available firearm plans. The State Department’s play here is obvious: it hopes to promulgate a new rule making its previous anti-speech efforts superficially legal in order to short-circuit Defense Distributed’s court case. If that were to happen, the non-profit would then have to file a new and separate suit alleging the unconstitutionality of the new rule.

Thanks pcfixer. The current regime continues promulgating things that conflict with each other, one sub-para to the next (Congress has no monopoly on that). It is sufficient for them to kick the can down the road with enough obstacles in the way of its citizens such that prior restraint on speech is accomplished under threat of prison sentence. While they seem to be benevolent in their new "definition" of public domain, what is chilling is what they propose to call a "defense article(item)".

Direct link to their proposed ass-covering. (Warning: Bring your mental whiteboard.)

In the end, it's ok if it's in the public domain - but it isn't legally in the public domain unless they say so. Can they support this POS in court? I doubt it; but it seems they can get the same result by tying a peasant up for year$$$ if they cast their eye on you.

And to borrow the metaphor from another thread, here's the next slice of salami:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...m-owning-guns/

Any disabled Vets that applied for social security disability on the basis of PTSD are in line for this one...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...ry.html#page=1

Get ready, here comes the full court press for the last 18 months of the administration. And let's not forget the second order effect that Veterans will stop seeking help for PTSD if they think their right to bear arms will be revoked.

Why is it that liberals think they can win a fight when only the other side is armed?

And we should remove their Freedom of Speech rights, religion and so forth.

All it's going to take is for a dem to take office in 2016 and some are going to march.....

I saw the writing on the wall many years ago, in regards to this line of thinking.

All vets who have put in for disability claims for PTSD, through the VA, are setting themselves up for failure and to be singled out by "our" government. Now I am not saying that those who truly are in need of care, should not seek assistance/treatment. But just be prepared for the possible consequences.:munchin

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/...the-greeks.htm

I thought this was a great article that relates to this exact subject.

Yeah too bad liberals/progressives don't study history.

I had never given much thought to the logistics of a nationwide repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Interesting take.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...=VDHM%20Reader

We are advised to not judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works...



Yes I know the vast majority of mass shooters subscribe to the religion of so-called progressivem.

The National Review article above is thought provoking.

The article and excerpts below also shed a bit of light on what might be expected in terms of civil disobedience if the populace were confronted with disarmament.

If force were to be used by the government to enforce these type of laws I suspect that things would deteriorate rapidly.

24,000 out of 1,000,000+...

Low assault-weapon registration stats suggest low compliance with Gov. Cuomo’s landmark SAFE Act gun control law

BY ADAM EDELMAN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Updated: Tuesday, June 23, 2015

In the years since Gov. Cuomo signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the NY SAFE Act, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their assault-style weapons with the state, according to statistics provided by the New York State Police.

Law enforcement experts have estimated there could be nearly 1 million assault-style weapons in circulation across the state, suggesting that many New Yorkers are ignoring a central provision of what had been touted by gun control advocates as a milestone law.

“What these numbers expose is that, if there are people who are wilfully ignoring the law, that means tens of thousands of gun owners are not complying with a law that is supported by New Yorkers," said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, citing a May poll commissioned by her group that showed state residents support key provisions of the SAFE Act.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2267730

An interesting story illustrating the importance of armed free men...complete article at link below.

"The Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, wrote in his diary, “the joke cannot last much longer, but it shows what the Jews are capable of when they have arms in their hands.” [Yuri Suhl, introduction to “They Fought Back," p. 15.]"

"...as elsewhere, the key impediment to resistance was shortage of arms. According to Holocaust historian Abram L. Sachar: “The indispensable need, of course, was arms."

********

The Warsaw ghetto uprising: Armed Jews vs. Nazis

By David Kopel October 10 at 5:06 PM
The Volokh ConspiracyOpinion

During World War II, 30,000 Jewish partisans fought in Eastern Europe, in their own combat units. In Western Europe, where anti-semitism among the conquered gentile population was less severe, Jews were able to participate as individuals in the national resistance, rather than having to fight in separate units. For example, in France, Jews amounted to less than one percent of French population, but comprised about 15 to 20 percent of the French Resistance. One of the most successful battles of the Jewish resistance was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Nearly every Jew who participated was eventually killed — but they were going to be killed anyway. By choosing to stand and fight, the Warsaw Jews diverted a significant amount of Nazis resources from battlefields elsewhere, thus hastening the Nazi defeat.

The following is a based on my forthcoming book “The Morality of Self-Defense and Military Action: The Judeo-Christian Tradition,” which will be published in 2016 by Praeger.

Before the war, about 10 percent of Poland’s population was Jewish. In the Middle Ages, Poland had been a welcoming, tolerant and free nation, and many Jews emigrated there. But when Poland regained its independence in 1919, thanks to the Versailles Treaty, the nation degenerated into a military dictatorship which encouraged anti-semitism.

The Nazis took most of Poland in September 1939, but according to the terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact, the Soviet Union was allowed to take the eastern third of the nation. After the June 1941 German invasion of the U.S.S.R., all of Poland fell under German control.

In Eastern Europe, the Nazis followed a standard procedure. All the Jews in a city would be ordered to move into a walled ghetto. Movement in and out of the ghetto was strictly controlled. The Germans would set up a Judenrat of collaborationist Jews to run the ghetto and to punish any attempts at rebellion. The Judenrat received special privileges from the Nazis. Often, the Judenrat was told that as long as the ghetto worked hard to produce factory goods for the Germans, the ghetto would be allowed to survive.

Eventually, the Germans would begin deporting large numbers of people from the ghetto — ostensibly for resettlement in labor camps, but almost always for extermination. The Judenrat would be required to select the Jews to be deported. Eventually, the whole ghetto would be depopulated and the area would be declared Judenrein (Jew-free).

Warsaw’s large pre-war Jewish population was initially supplemented by large numbers of Jews who were shipped in from other cities. The Jews were forced to live on starvation rations, and many in the ghetto died from starvation or contagious disease. The Germans eventually cut the size of the ghetto in half, consolidating the survivors into extremely crowded conditions. Deportations to the death camps continued to depopulate the ghetto.

In late 1942, Emmanuel Ringelblum, the well-educated author of a diary about life in the Warsaw Ghetto, wrote:

Whomever you talk to, you hear the same cry: The resettlement never should have been permitted. We should have run into the street, set fire to everything in sight, have torn down the walls, and escaped to the Other Side. The Germans would have taken their revenge. It would have cost tens of thousands of lives, but not 300,000. Now we are ashamed of ourselves, disgraced in our own eyes, and in the eyes of the world, where our docility has earned us nothing. This must not be repeated now. We must put up a resistance, defend ourselves against the enemy, man and child.

[Emmanuel Ringelblum, “Notes from the Warsaw Ghetto: The Journal of Emmanuel Ringelblum," ed. & transl., Jacob Solan (N.Y.: Schoken Books, 1958), p. 326.]

On Jan. 18, 1943, the Germans rounded up 7,000 Jews and sent them to the extermination camp at Treblinka; they killed 600 more right in Warsaw. But on that day, an uprising began. In the beginning, the Jewish Fighting Organization had about 600 volunteers; the Jewish Military Association had about 400, and there were thousands more in spontaneous small groups. The Jews had only 10 handguns, but the Germans did not realize how under-armed the Jewish fighters were.

After four days of fighting, the Germans on January 21 pulled back from the ghetto, to organize better. A diary written in the Warsaw ghetto exulted, “In the four days of fighting we had made up for the shame of Jewish passivity in the first extermination action of July, 1942.” [Ber Mark, “The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” in “They Fought Back" ed., Yuri Suhl (N.Y.: Paperback Library, 1968; 1st pub. 1967), pp. 104-06].

Not only the Germans were shocked by the unexpected resistance, but also the Jews were astonished. They could not imagine until then that the beaten, exhausted victims could rise against a mighty enemy who had conquered Europe. Many Jews who were in the streets of Warsaw during the fighting refused to believe that on Zamenhof and Mila streets Jewish boys and girls had attacked Germans. The large-scale fighting which followed convinced all that it was possible.

In February 1943, the Polish Home Army transferred 50 revolvers (many of them defective), 50 hand grenades, and four pounds of explosives to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The Warsaw Jews also manufactured their own explosives, including Molotov cocktails. But, wrote Ringelblum, as in Biblical days, “their most potent weapon was their deep sense of national pride and responsibility.”


Eventually, the Jewish forces began to run out of ammunition. The Warsaw Jews, like the Jews throughout Europe, were unable to produce their own ammunition. There was little “gun culture” among European Jews of the 1930s, so few Jews had the equipment for “reloading” — the home manufacture of ammunition. In contrast, hundreds of thousands of American families own the machine tools used for reloading; home manufacture of ammunition is legal everywhere in the United States.

The Germans suffered over a thousand casualties in the first week of fighting alone. The Germans had to spend more time subduing the Warsaw Ghetto than they did conquering the entire nations of Poland or France.

The Warsaw Jews knew they had almost no chance of survival. They decided that it was better to die fighting than to die in a gas chamber. It was better to kill at least some of the killers, than to let them massacre Jews with impunity. Ringelblum wrote, “We took stock of our position and saw that this was a struggle between a fly and an elephant. But our national dignity dictated to us that the Jews must offer resistance and not allow themselves to be led wantonly to slaughter.”

Warsaw was the first mass civilian uprising against the Nazis. On April 23, the Jewish commander, 25-year-old Mordechai Anielevich, had written, “I have a feeling that great things are happening, that what we have undertaken is of tremendous significance.”


“If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” says the Talmud. [Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 72a.] That is the best response to mass murderers — in 1943, today and always.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...jews-vs-nazis/

Liberal Gavin Newsom's plan to thwart gun violence
 

An illogical but highly effective plan to further divide us. Only in a state like California, with its endless supply of delusional liberals would this be considered. Get rid of your taxpayer funded armed security first, you hypocrite coward.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday will introduce a measure for next year’s ballot that aims to stanch the proliferation of gun violence, including a provision to require ammunition buyers to undergo background checks.

Newsom, a Democrat running for governor in 2018, will announce the measure in San Francisco, where he’ll be joined by co-authors from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that grew out of the mass shooting at 101 California St. in 1993.

The proposal follows a cascade of shootings around the U.S., including an average 92 gun deaths each day and four dozen school shootings this year. A renewed assault weapons ban, background checks and other suggested laws regulating the sale, possession and use of firearms have failed to garner support from Congress, which is under pressure from the powerful National Rifle Association and other gun lobbying groups formed to protect the Second Amendment.

California has among the nation’s toughest gun restrictions, including a 1999 ban on assault weapons such as the AK-47 and importation, manufacture and sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines. However, several more recent planned laws in the wake of the deadly 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., faltered in the state’s Democratic-run Legislature, or have been vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat with a mixed record on firearms.

“In the last 72 hours – 68 people have been killed and 129 people have been injured due to gun violence in America,” Newsom wrote online Wednesday.

His measure, which requires nearly 366,000 signatures to qualify for next year’s ballot, incorporates provisions of bills that stalled at the state Capitol. It would ban the possession of large-capacity magazines – more than 10 rounds – and require anyone who currently has them to sell to a licensed firearm dealer, transfer them out of state or relinquish them to law enforcement to be disposed of.

The pending measure also would force those selling ammunition to be licensed like firearm dealers and require the purchasers to go through a background check. It would establish a process to recover guns from people prohibited from owning them because of their criminal record; mandate individuals whose guns were lost or stolen to report to law enforcement; and compel the state Department of Justice to notify the federal government when someone is added to the database of people barred from buying or owning a firearm.

CONT... LINK

America's best guns and ammunication salesmen , the liberal/progressive/socialists!

(Makes you wonder if liberals like Newsom don't have a huge amount of Olin stock......)

Liberal/progressive/socialists, taking your rights/freedoms one amendment at a time.


(I'll be opening a gun shop in Ehrenberg, AZ is this measure passes.)

As if we need another reason to defeat Hillary.

October 23, 2015
Arranging American Gun Confiscation
By Daren Jonescu
American Thinker

America's progressive chatter on guns has been shifting noticeably from the abstract language of "control" to the concrete language of "confiscation." Hillary Clinton is just the latest leading voice to serve notice that the forced disarmament of law-abiding Americans is not the dystopian fantasy of paranoids, but a matter of current policy discussion -- and action.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...fiscation.html

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...#ixzz3pW3ZuXrV

Thanks tonyz
 

Money quote: "Is a law establishing tyranny "the law?"

Some in other discussions hereabouts should reflect on that and where they will personally draw that "but-it's-the-law" line (or even IF they will make the distinction). Figure it out sooner rather than later.

As Natural Law proponents may have suggested in other circumstances during other times...

Lex iniusta non est lex...

The 2A stands between the people and tyranny.

Then I do hope she wins this next election and it begins. :munchin

If Hillary wins...Warren Zevon said it well...send lawyers, guns and money...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5Xv7QqXiM

That line would have to be pretty thick to garner support of any kind of widespread uprising/rebellion. I would wager it would take an overt, mass door-to-door gestapo style confiscation of arms to REALLY piss off enough Americans to fight back. Apparently the dissolution of the first amendment for some but not others, the constant attacks on the 2nd, so on and so forth have not been enough.

I'd like to know "who" is going to be doing the "confiscation".

If and when that "order" is given people will start dying en mass along with the idiot that gave the order.:munchin

Pretty simple I think. Most of the rookies at "name-that-agency", die hard liberal members that are already in those agencies, and just plain ole dumb asses that never think for themselves and just want that revenue stream to stay wet.

I'm not saying that everybody in a LE agency would follow those orders, but enough of them would to warrant resistance. Just my $.02.

That's OK. Unlike Liam Neeson our skills are real and I'd put those skills against any and all "federal" personal/special agents/agencies. :munchin

The only way to take the guns from the people is to have the military backing those orders and that's not going to happen.