Truth Frequency Radio

Jan 26, 2013

In Recent Debate Joe Biden Asked “Preppers” to Trade in Their “Assault Weapons” For Shotguns (Video)

By JG Vibes
January 26, 2012

Apparently guns aren’t just for hunting anymore. Who would have thought? Joe Biden has appealed to preppers in a recent appearance, asking them to support an “assault weapons” ban, and suggesting that they just buy some registered shotguns when it goes into effect.

In all reality people have the moral right to own a few of both without registering them with anyone, but that wasn’t touched on in his discussion. Just earthquakes and “doomsday” scenarios.

Full Article

Holder begins gun-control push

Megan R. Wilson
The Hill
Jan 26, 2013

The Justice Department is taking the first steps toward carrying out President Obama’s executive actions on gun control.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday released three proposals to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was one of the 23 actions ordered by Obama last week to tackle gun violence.

The proposed regulations would give local law-enforcement agencies access to the gun-sale database that is maintained by the FBI. The rules would also preserve records of denied weapons sales indefinitely.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act already requires federal background checks for gun purchases, but not every firearm sale is covered under the law.

Full article here

Former Alt Media Founder: It is now time for North Carolina to stand with state nullification and protect the 2nd Amendment

Author: Silence DoGood, Federal Jack

Former USWGO Alternative News Founder with US Presidential candidate Virgil H. Goode, photo dated May 26th 2012.

The former USWGO Alternative News media founder Brian D. Hill finally speaks out in the months of mysteriously shutting down his growing alternative media empire that had over 2 million hits monthly and growing. He explains that now with the overwhelming resistance in North Carolina over Obama gun control executive orders and laws that threaten the 2nd Amendment rights, now is the time for North Carolinian’s to stand up, and get their state to legally resist the feds using the 10th Amendment. had disappeared and articles on other sites including scribd documents all disappeared with hardly a explanation from Mr. Hill or that it was muffled as to the reasoning behind the move to destroy USWGO. He has decided to speak out at least once from his political exiled response since the gun control crises will wake up a lot of brainwashed and uneducated North Carolinian’s due to the corporate controlled media all over the state including the Madison Messenger, WXII12, FOX8, The News and Record, RCENO, and other TV Stations, Newspapers, and internet news sites that Brian had battled to get them to cover stories explaining to the citizens how the NDAA 2012 federal law threatens individual rights to a trial and jury. Those media outlets refused to cover the Nullify-NDAA Petition which was partially responsible to USWGO’s downfall since a corporate controlled media blackout means that any political activist can be targeted or destroyed without any hope of beating it. Only a truthful media can keep the government in check and that includes the federal government.

He advocates that North Carolina citizens read and share this article with other people within the state then send emails, letters, phone calls, and even ask the state legislators and senators in person if they will support the Nullify-NDAA petition and plan by former USWGO and other state nullification plans including plans by the North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center (NCTAC).

The North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center created the North Carolina 2nd Amendment Preservation Act which will be lobbied to a North Carolina legislator or senator to introduce in committee for the state house or senate. Brian tells FederalJack that he thinks North Carolinian’s should also work with the Nullify-NDAA petition that is on record with the North Carolina state government archives. In the offices of both Rep. Bryan R. Holloway (91st district) and Rep. Bert Jones you can find in their records of email exchanges between them and the petition organizer, a copy of the Nullify-NDAA Petition that Brian had done last year which gathered over 200 written signatures from Constituents in such a short time all by himself with no help from the democrat or republican parties nor any political organizations except We Are Change NC. Infowars also covered a story about the Nullify-NDAA Petition as well.

Full Article

“A Daughter’s Regret” – Powerful Testimony in Defense of the Second Amendment

Activist Post

The following video from many years ago titled “A Daughter’s Regret” shows the testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp whose parents were killed when a madman opened fire in a Texas cafeteria. It is a powerful reminder of how essential it is to protect the Second Amendment, not for duck hunting, as she points out, but to protect our loved ones from maniacs … and a government that would put us in such a vulnerable position.

Here is an excerpt from the video description, which adds background and context to her testimony.

It was October 1991 when an unemployed merchant seaman drove his pickup truck into a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, Tex., leaped out and opened fire. He killed 23 people and wounded more than 20.

Hupp and her parents were having lunch in the restaurant when the shooting started. Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her .38-caliber Smith & Wesson, but she had left it in the car…

“Even if you choose not to have a gun, as the bad guy who ignored all the laws is getting close to you and as he levels that firearm at one of your children, don’t you hope the person next to you has chosen to carry a gun and knows how to use it?” …

“A gun can be used to kill a family, or defend a family,” Hupp said. “I’ve lived what gun laws do. My parents died because of what gun laws do. I’m the quintessential soccer mom, and I want the right to protect my family. What happened to my parents will never happen again with my kids there.”

Record Line Outside Austin Gun Show
January 26, 2013

With gun shows across the country drawing record crowds, it’s no surprise to find lines of 500 people or more at a time waiting to get inside the Saxet Gun Show which is attended by thousands, taking place this January 26 & 27 at the New Travis County Expo Center in Austin, Texas.

Our reporters and readers attending the show sent photos of the wait from the muddy parking lot to get inside the event that one can normally walk right into. A police officer estimated the line to be at least 500 strong at about 9:30 AM, with a total of several thousand attending the gun show throughout the day.

Clearly, we are witnessing a grassroots rejection of Obama’s gun control designs, despite an attempt that is underway in Austin to ban gun shows, even on public property.

Yet, this crowd makes the obvious point that people are unwilling to give up their 2nd Amendment rights for political expediency. A gun show last week in Jackson, Tennessee, like others across the country, also drew thousands in record attendance.

Full Article

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

William F. Jasper
New American
Jan 25, 2013

It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.

In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”

“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”

The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

Full Article

CNN host calls out S.C. sheriff on refusal to enforce weapons ban

By Arturo Garcia
Friday, January 25, 2013 13:36 EST

Carol Costello interviews Sheriff Al Cannon 012513

A South Carolina sheriff who publicly declared he won’t enforce any new gun safety laws he deems unconstitutional accused Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Friday of introducing a “scary” new proposal designed to undermine the Second Amendment.

“I believe that there is a goal to ultimately take as many firearms as possible,” said Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon, who admitted to CNN’s Carol Costello that he has not seen the list of firearms covered in Feinstein’s new assault-weapons ban. “The differences between the firearms, more often than not, are cosmetic as to what is an assault weapon, that sort of thing.”

Feinstein’s proposal calls for the renewal of the Brady Bill, which expired in 2004. It also seeks to ban gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, as well as the sale and importation of firearms fitted for detachable magazines.

The bill also exempts more than 2,000 firearm models used for hunting or sports purposes, defined by make and model and not appearance. Gun owners who already own high-capacity weapons would not have to give them up if the proposal becomes law.

Health Ranger helps voice powerful collection of quotes from Founding Fathers

Friday, January 25, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
Natural News

people(NaturalNews) One of the best ways to fight tyranny is by educating yourself, and now our very own editor-in-chief, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, is doing his part to help inform the masses about the Constitution’s Second Amendment, in the words of the founding fathers.

Adams and others have just completed a video in which they document the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the Constitution by quoting the founders verbatim.

In one segment, Adams cites James Madison, the nation’s fourth president, a key writer of the Federalist Papers and a drafter of the Bill of Rights, as he explained the purpose behind the Second Amendment in The Federalist Papers No. 46: The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

In another segment, Adams quotes Samuel Adams, the fourth governor of Massachusetts who led the Boston Tea Party and the Sons of Liberty: “The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

The video was not entirely dedicated to quotes about arms by the founders. The video’s producers included several gun-related quotes by some of the 20th century’s most vile, ruthless dictators.

Quoting the most murderous of all Soviet premiers, Joseph Stalin, Adams recited, “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns; why should we let them have ideas?”

Other founding father quotes in the video include:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. Who is the militia? Are they not ourselves? To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them. — George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention who drafted that state’s Declaration of Rights in 1776.

Congress hath no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American. — Tench Coxe, delegate to the Continental Congress.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
George Washington, commanding general of the Continental Army and the country’s first president.

Feinstein declares war on Bill of Rights, calls for American citizens to be disarmed or registered

Mike Adams
Natural News
Jan 25, 2013

US Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced her highly-anticipated gun disarmament legislation yesterday, throwing her hat in the ring as an outright traitor to the United States Constitution and a dangerous tyrant who seeks to hand the federal government a firearms monopoly. The bill would criminalize nearly all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns while calling fornationwide gun registration of all existing firearms. It would also criminalize citizens buying ammo magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, even while the government can purchase ammo magazines of unlimited capacity.

This is red alert time for all Americans who seek to save this nation from falling into the hands of outright tyrants.

How does the federal government plan to enforce these new gun control laws, if passed? Using GUNS, of course! The threat of force is what’s used to gain your “compliance” with everything the government does.

As you can easily see, America is under attack from within. Its domestic enemies are now abundantly clear: All those who are actively working against the Second Amendment of the US Bill of Rights are, by definition, enemies of America and subject to arrest and prosecution. Natural News calls for a “line in the sand” defense of our natural-born rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun prohibition doomed to fail

Feinstein’s gun disarmament legislation, if passed, would launch a new era of “gun prohibition” with all the same failures, financial costs and ethical lapses as the war on drugs, or the war on alcohol during the prohibition of the 1920′s. Even though nearly everyone on the political left recognizes the total failure of marijuana prohibition and alcohol prohibition, many now suddenly believe that gun prohibition will somehow be pulled off without a hitch.

They are wrong. If this policy of Feinstein is pursued, it will drive America into a bloody civil war costing potentially millions of innocent lives. It will turn America’s streets into combat zones, pitting patriotic, freedom-loving Americans against a tyrannical, oppressive, unconstitutional government run by criminals and thugs.

Full Article

Rahm Emanuel Demands Banks Not Do Business with Firearms Manufacturers

Cheryl K. Chumley
January 25, 2013

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is taking his gun control push to private banks and asking major lenders in Chicago to stop doing business with firearms manufacturers.

In a letter to TD Bank and Bank of America on Thursday, Mr. Emanuel asked the CEOs to force gun manufacturers they do business with to “find common ground with the vast majority of Americans who support a military weapons and ammunition ban.”

TD Bank provides $60 million in credit to Smith & Wesson; Bank of America provides a $25 million line to Sturm, Ruger & Co.

Read more

Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law

Alex Newman
January 25, 2013

After Democrats in New York rammed a sweeping assault on the right to keep and bear arms through the legislature that failed to exempt police officers from the draconian restrictions, gun owners and even some lawmakers are planning what has been dubbed potentially the largest act of civil disobedience in state history. According to news reports, gun rights activists are urging everyone to defy far-left Governor Andrew Cuomo’s new registration mandate while daring authorities to “come and take it.”

Analysts say the legislation, passed in a frenzy last week in the wake of the Newtown shooting, represents the most brazen infringement on the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the nation. Among other points, the so-called SAFE Act seeks to limit magazines to just seven bullets, require virtually all of the estimated one million semi-automatic rifles in the state to be registered with authorities, mandate reporting of patients who express indications that they may have thoughts about hurting themselves or others by doctors, and more.

Aside from being unconstitutional, experts on gun violence also point out that the draconian schemes are a bad idea: Studies have repeatedly shown that more guns lead to less crime, and the phenomenon is obvious across America — just compare Chicago or D.C. to Alaska or Wyoming. The mandated reporting requirements for doctors, meanwhile, have come under fire from across the political spectrum. Whether it will even be possible to enforce the bill, however, remains to be seen.

Read more

Obama’s Gun Control Proposals Gets Support Of Vatican
January 25, 2013

How can Vatican bureaucrats justify support for United Nations gun control initiatives while at the same time advocate the right to life?

How can Vatican bureaucrats deny the right to the means necessary for defense of life against violent criminals, including dictatorial criminal governments, proliferating around the world today?

The Pope “offers his full support and cooperation” to “mechanisms for prevention, reduction, accountability and control (of guns).”

He has specifically endorsed:

  • The creation of systems of marking, tracing, and record-keeping;
  • The defining of criteria for the export of arms or for determining when there is effectively a surplus;
  • The regulation of brokering activity;
  • The inclusion of mechanisms for collecting and destroying arms in peace processes;
  • The establishment of adequate standards for the management and security of the stocks of these weapons;
  • The implementation of educational and awareness activities aimed at promoting a culture of peace and life, through, among other things, the involvement of different protagonists in the civil society.

The Pope gave a warning against nations undermining the authority of the United Nations by acting unilaterally. The Pope also found time to bless the U.N. flag.

The Vatican praised President Barack Obama’s proposals for curbing gun violence, saying they are a:

“step in the right direction.”

The Vatican’s chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress

“to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths.”

Lombardi said, “I am with them,” in an editorial, carried on Vatican Radio, lining up the Vatican’s moral support in favor of firearm limits.

“The initiatives announced by the American administration for limiting and controlling the spread and use of weapons are certainly a step in the right direction,” Lombardi said.

Obama is trying to rally support for reinstating a ban on assault weapons and requiring background checks on all gun sales. He faces stiff opposition in the U.S. Congress and from powerful gun lobbies.

“Considering that Americans possess about 300 million firearms,” Lombardi said, “people cannot fool themselves that it is enough to limit the number and use (of guns) to impede in the future horrendous massacres like that of Newtown that shook the conscience of America and world, as well as that of children and adults.”

He was referring to the Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school where 20 children and six adults were killed by a sole attacker last month.

“But it would be worse to be satisfied with words” of condemnation alone, Lombardi said. “While massacres are carried out by unbalanced or hate-driven persons, there is no doubt that they are carried out with firearms,” the Vatican spokesman said.

Lombardi renewed Vatican appeals for disarmament and encouragement for measures to fight “the production, commerce and contraband of all types of arms.”

The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions. The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern. His attacks on the civilian use of so-called assault weapons raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes.

The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.

H/T The Daily Sheeple

Emanuel To Banks: Stop Supporting Gun Makers

CBS Chicago
January 25, 2013

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is putting more pressure on gun makers to get behind his push for an assault weapons ban and criminal background checks for gun purchasers.

This time, he wants to go after their bottom line.

Emanuel is pushing two major financial institutions to stop their financial backing of gun makers, unless those companies support “commonsense reforms, including requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales.”

The mayor is urging that banks to stop lines of credit, financing for acquisitions and expansions and financial advising.

Read full article

West Point Defines “Domestic Enemies” to Prepare Troops to Take On AmericansBrandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Soldiers and police in America take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. But knowing who is a domestic enemy of the Constitution can be confusing to a young grunt. So a West Point think tank decided to broadly define what a domestic enemy may look like to ensure soldiers follow orders when the time comes.

In a study recently published by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger, the author of the study, attempts to present a picture of an America infested with dangerous “Right Wing” domestic terrorists lurking in the shadows and waiting to launch an attack on government establishments, agents, and minorities.

In the study, what Perliger defines as the “Far-Right” is actually a mixture of race hate groups with ordinary militias, anti-abortion activists, Libertarians/Anarchists, and “conspiracy theorists.” Perliger suggets that this “Far-Right” contingent is glued together by an identification with an “anti-federalist” ideology as well as a belief in a “New World Order.” According to Perliger, these groups are concerned with the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

Perliger, who is the director of terrorism studies at the West Point Combating Terrorism Center writes in the Introduction to the study that its purpose is to provide “a conceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks and their associated trends.”

For all the repetition of the terms “terrorism” and “violent” however, it is important to mention just how broad a definition has been assigned to this term in recent years. As Madison Ruppert of End the Lie writes in his article, “West Point study identifies ‘violent far-right’ with recognizing tyrannical, corrupt nature of government,” “It is worth noting that the federal government is quite tyrannical and corrupt with a federal judge ruled the government can claim the legal right to assassinate Americans without any charge or trial while never explaining the legal basis, engage in widespread illegal surveillance (which is dramatically increasing) and indefinitely detain Americans.”

Ruppert continues by stating, “If those aren’t violations of individuals’ civil liberties and constitutional rights, I don’t know what is.”

Yet, while Perliger defines three different branches of the “far-right” – racist/white supremacy movement, anti-federalist movement, and fundamentalist movement – the author lumps the three different branches into one, all while conveniently ignoring pertinent facts that might not back up his claims.

Perliger’s paper notably lacks mention of the fact that a great many “racist/white supremacy” organizations are themselves either partially or even entirely staffed by law enforcement agents of government intelligence. Likewise, Perliger entirely conflates race-based movements (also likely infiltrated and controlled by government agencies) with what he labels the “Christian Fundamentalist” movement. This, as Madison Ruppert points out, is described with a complete lack of understanding (intentional or otherwise) as to what “fundamentalism” actually is.

Full Article

New Mexico mulls new gun laws after teen charged in family’s murder

January 24, 2013

While a 15-year-old New Mexico boy faces charges of murdering five family members with his father’s gun, state lawmakers are weighing two measures that show just how divided the state is on firearms.

One measure would require background checks for all gun sales, while another would allow concealed weapons to be carried into bars and restaurants. And lawmakers on both sides of the issue say they will not be swayed by the alleged actions of Nehemiah Griego, who is accused of killing his mother, father and three siblings on Jan. 19 in their Albuquerque home. Former state Sen. Eric Griego, the boy’s uncle, said he and his murdered brother disagreed about gun control. But he said the shootings are not part of the legislative debate.

“To be clear, our family has differing views on gun rights and gun control,” Eric Griego said in a statement. “What we do agree on is that those who wish to score political points should not use a confused, misguided 15-year old boy to make their case.”

Read more

Attn. Missouri Gun Owners: Please Report to the Principal’s Office

chappalleBy Kimberly Paxton
The Daily Sheeple
January 24, 2013

Adding another chapter to the book of “How to Villify American Gun Owners”, a new bill on the table of the Missouri State Senate would require parents to notify their child’s school if they own a firearm.

Not reporting the acquisition of a new gun to your child’s school would become a criminal offense.

State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal says that the bill she introduced will help to end school violence. “It encourages parents to make sure they store their guns safely in their home, it also gives the school districts the opportunity to help encourage gun safety in the community and in the household.”

Chappelle-Nadal says that she “believes in the 2nd amendment” but hopes this will bring awareness to the need to “lock up guns.”

This registration would be available to the police, of course, to “help them solve crimes.”

Much like the publication of a map of legal gun owners in Westchester County, NY, it’s just another bullseye painted on the homes of gun owners.


The summary of the bill, SB124 reads:

SB 124 – This act creates the offense of failing to stop illegal firearm possession. A person commits the offense if he or she is the parent or guardian of a child under the age of 18, he or she knows the child possesses a firearm in violation of the law, and he or she fails to stop the possession or report it to law enforcement.

The offense is a Class A misdemeanor unless death or injury results from the firearm possession in which case it is a Class D felony.

This act also creates the offense of negligent storage of a firearm. A parent or guardian of a child under the age of 18 commits the offense by recklessly storing or leaving a firearm in a manner that is likely to result in the child accessing the firearm if the child obtains access to the firearm and unlawfully carries it to school, kills or injures another person with it, or commits a crime with it.

A firearm that is in a secure location or locked is not considered to be recklessly stored or left in a manner likely to result in the child accessing the firearm.

The offense is a Class A misdemeanor unless the child kills or injures another person in which case it is a Class D felony.

The parent or guardian of a child injured or killed by a firearm may only be prosecuted for negligent storage of a firearm if he or she was grossly negligent.

This act requires a parent or guardian to notify a school district, or the governing body of a private or charter school, that he or she owns a firearm within 30 days of enrolling the child in school or becoming the owner of a firearm.

The written notification only needs to include the names of the parent and any child attending the school and the fact that the parent owns a firearm.

A person only needs to send one written notification if he or she has multiple children attending the school or becomes the owner of additional firearms. Any time a new child is enrolled in a school the parent or guardian must send an updated notification with the new child’s name.

Failure to notify the school under this act is an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $100. If a person is found guilty of negligent storage of a firearm and has failed to notify the school of firearm ownership, the person must be fined $1,000 in addition to any other penalties authorized by law.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple


Now is the Time to Stop Smart Guns

Julie Beal, Contributor
Activist Post

Sometimes it feels like I’m talking to a brick wall – last week, I raised the alarm on the growth of the smart gun movement , and how they would lead to microchip implants.

Then Obama issued his ‘executive orders’, or rather, made a speech about guns, including measures that could further the introduction of these ‘personalized’ weapons. The mainstream has also been reporting on this issue, so I’m mystified as to why there is still no real reaction: the focus of gun rights advocates remains on the mental ‘health’ aspect.

So excuse me for shouting, but it’s high time to:



I am a UK researcher; people here rarely talk about guns, and it’s uncommon to see them being used or carried. However, I’m trying to inform people about smart guns because I’m opposed to all of the programs which require implantation with a microchip for security reasons, and because the police and military[1] have an alarming array of awful weapons to use against us[2].

In the UK, The Telegraph just reported that Google wants people to use a ring to have a single online sign-in (this is identity management):

…. In a research paper, two security experts at the web giant have outlined a future in which the main way of guaranteeing we are who we say we are online will be possession of a physical token, perhaps embedded in smartphones or even jewellery.

They have added to growing claims that passwords are both inherently insecure and increasingly impractical.

We’d like your smartphone or smartcard-embedded finger ring to authorize a new computer via a tap on the computer, even in situations in which your phone might be without cellular connectivity, the Googlers wrote.

Full Article

Video: Mayor Backs Second Amendment After Councilman Tries to Eject Armed Veteran

Anti-gun bureaucrat attempted to pass motion to have firearms confiscated

Paul Joseph Watson
January 24, 2013

A fascinating scene played out at a small town council meeting last week when a Mayor stood up for the second amendment after a council member tried to pass a motion that would have forced an armed veteran with a concealed carry permit to have his gun confiscated by police.

The incident, which occurred in Oak Harbor, Washington, began when Lucas Yonkman, a disabled veteran who fought in Afghanistan, stood up to speak in defense of the second amendment in the context of an attempt by one of the council members to have guns banned from public places like city parks.

“I carry a weapon every day for the purpose of protecting people,” said Yonkman, adding that there should be more firearms safety training for children. “The American people should be very careful about messing with the second amendment and changing it….it’s very important that it’s there for not just personal protection but the protection of the American people,” he concluded.

After Yonkman sat down again, councilman Rick Almberg demanded to know if Yonkman was “armed right now,” to which Mayor Scott Dudley responded, “would it matter”? “It does to me,” responded Almberg.

Dudley then turned to the city attorney to find out if it was necessary to ask the question, to which Attorney Grant Weed responded that it was not in the procedure for council members to ask questions of citizens.

“This is the time for citizens to address the council, not the other way around,” said Weed.

Returning to the microphone, Yonkman said he was comfortable in answering the question and stated, “Yes I have a concealed carry permit and I am concealed carrying at this moment. I would hope people would feel comfortable with that due to the fact that I am a trained professional with a weapon and I served my country for over five years in Afghanistan, sustained wounds in protection of those rights, and if there was an issue I would protect any person – whether I knew them or not – with my own life.”

Councilman Almberg then immediately responded by making a motion to have citizens entering the council chamber “check their weapon with the police chief….or to leave the premises.”

Almberg’s motion was seconded and a vote was taken, with the motion being defeated 4-2.

“That motion does not pass,” said the Mayor, to which Almberg responded, “Thank you Mayor, if I may I’ll excuse myself at this time,” before leaving the room.

A short time later, Mayor Dudley again brought up the motion, asking Attorney Weed about the legality of the motion if it had passed.

Weed responded by stating that the motion would have been “invalid and unenforceable”.

Mayor Dudley then apologized to Yonkman, pointing out that the two council members who voted for the motion were the same two who had tried to ban Yonkman from wearing a hat in council chambers.

“They are now trying to take your right to bear arms away,” said Dudley, adding that he felt safer, not fearful or uncomfortable, because of Yonkman’s attendance.

“I think it definitely opens the eyes of the public in reference to how some elected officials are choosing to go up and beyond the scope of their elected position to take away your rights,” said the Mayor.

Full Article

Obama stealing gun owners’ freedom: NRA


National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre

Speaking at the 56th annual Weatherby Foundation International Hunting and Conservation Awards in Reno, Nevada, on Tuesday, NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre sharply criticized Obama’s inaugural address in which he said the nation “cannot afford to mistake absolutism for principle.”

“I urge our president to use caution when attacking clearly defined absolutes in favor of his principles,” LaPierre said in his first response to the president’s speech, adding, “When absolutes are abandoned for principles, the US Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone’s graffiti.”

In his second inaugural speech on Monday, Obama said, “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way,” implying that the constitutional provisions need to be interpreted to suit today’s changed world.

The NRA’s chief noted that Obama’s speech “made a mockery” of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, claiming that Obama is trying to take away Americans’ fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

“They are God-given freedoms. They belong to us in the United States of America as our birthright. No government gave them to us and no government can ever take them away,” LaPierre said.

Full Article

Not Surprisingly, Castro’s Take on Gun-Control Coincides With Our Rulers’

Becky Akers
Lew Rockwell Blog
Jan 24, 2013

My Texan friend, Bill Martin, sent me this link to a speech Fidel “Commie” Castro made on January 9, 1959, the day after his “victorious post-revolution entry into Havana, Cuba.” Although the reasons Commie lists for stealing Cubans’ guns differ from those of American politicians (instead of hiding behind “the children” a la his northern colleagues, Commie indignantly pooh-poohs the idea of defending oneself from his benevolent “revolutionary government” ), the two firmly agree that only cops and soldiers, rather than their victims, enjoy the right to be armed:

All the arms that were found by the rebel army are stored and locked in barracks, where they belong. What are these arms for? Against whom are they going to be used?

Against the revolutionary government that has the support of all the people? Do we have a dictatorship here? Are we going to take up arms against a free government that respects the rights of the people? We have a free country here. … There is no tormenting of political prisoners [well, that puts Commie’s Cuba one up on the US, doesn’t it?], no murders, no terror. When all the rights of the citizens have been restored … why do we need arms? …

We are never going to use force, because we belong to the people. Moreover, the day that the people do not want us we shall leave. {Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!] As soon as possible I will take the rifles off the streets. There are no more enemies, there is no longer anything to fight against, and if some day any foreigner or any movement comes up against the revolution, all the people will fight. The weapons belong in the barracks. No one has the right to have private armies here.

As the blogger who posted the speech points out, “Castro’s regime began collecting guns and disarming the population” mere hours after he delivered this harangue, and “within days of Castro’s promises of civility, a wave of executions was underway.”


US lawmakers introduce beefed-up assault weapons ban

By Michael Mathes (AFP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — US Senator Dianne Feinstein on Thursday introduced a toughened version of her assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, but she and other Democrats acknowledged an “uphill” battle to get it through Congress.

The new legislation, coming just six weeks after a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, left 20 children and six adults dead, aims to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons, as well as magazines and other feeding devices that accept more than 10 rounds.

It would ban 157 specific firearms outright, including the AR-15 Bushmaster used in Newtown, while respecting hunters and sportsmen by excluding 2,258 models of “legitimate” hunting and sporting rifles.

“We have had enough,” Feinstein said at an event with several members of Congress — all Democrats — and law enforcement officials, as she stood before a board with 10 semi-automatic weapons clipped to it as a visual prop.

“These weapons do not belong on the streets of our towns, our cities, in our schools, in our malls, in our workplaces, in our movie theaters.”

Feinstein’s is the first major gun legislation introduced since President Barack Obama proposed a series of measures last week, including a renewed assault weapons ban, aimed at reducing gun violence.

The bill would also require background checks on the sale or transfer of all “grandfathered” assault weapons, a measure that works toward Obama’s bid to close background check loopholes for gun purchases.

The US gun lobby, led by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), is staunchly opposed to any legislation that would restrict gun rights.

Lawmakers eager to impose stronger gun control face a fight among Republicans in Congress, many of whom rejected Obama’s proposals out of hand and who say they see any tightening of gun laws as an infringement of the right to bear arms as enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Feinstein insisted her bill would not take weapons away from law-abiding gun owners.

“The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time,” she said.

Full Article

Defiant Sheriffs, Continued

Becky Akers
Lew Rockwell Blog
Jan 25, 2013

We have some new entries for our list of Sheriffs Defying the Unconstitutional and Lawless Theft of Our Guns — Or Who Are At Least Saying They Do.

Vanessa Cole contributes this article on “Charleston County [S.C.] Sheriff Al Cannon.” He “vowed Thursday to ignore any proposed gun-control measures he deems unconstitutional, joining a growing chorus of lawmen across the nation opposed to new firearm restrictions. In his opinion, Cannon said, those demanding harsher gun laws are ‘taking advantage of broken hearts’ to push their agenda and restrict ‘a vital right’ in the wake of the shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn.”

If I don’t move to Texas, I may have to head for South Carolina: our next two reports originate there as well. “Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wrightsaid he doesn’t think the government should tell people what they can and cannot have.” Hmmm. Including heroin, Sheriff Wright? How about privately minted coins? Several thousand Oxycodone pills no doctor has prescribed? An incandescent light bulb or a toilet that requires only one flush? But I digress. “‘I’m not going to confiscate weapons from people that are law-abiding citizens. I’m not doing it and I don’t care what kind of orders come down,’ Wright said.” In a separate story, Sheriff Wright urged serfs to arm themselves after an unofficial rapist attacked a woman in a local park. No word on whether the louse was moonlighting for the TSA.

The sheriff’s advice to take arms against criminals raises an intriguing corollary. We know from common sense and academic studies that more guns mean less crime, to paraphrase John Lott’s memorable title. We’ve generally, tacitly confined that adage to crimes from private assailants. But it also works against the ones who leech off our taxes as they lord it over us. When those thugs, murderers, thieves, and liars know we can shoot back…well, it reduces the number and severity of their atrocities against us. It’s no accident that as Leviathan’s licensing, registration, regulation, restriction, prohibition, and all-around meddling with our weapons have increased, so have its depredations on us.

Update: Utah’s on the bandwagon, too. Joe Mangum sends this article about the warning they issued Obummer.

The Introduction Of The 2013 “Assault Weapons” Ban

Feinstein Permanent “Assault” Weapons Ban Planned for Over a Year

By Alex Thomas
January 24, 2012

Democratic lawmakers, lead by notorious gun control advocate Senator Dianne Feinstein, unveiled a planned piece of gun control legislation today with, what many believe to be, the goal of curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

The bill would ban what is being labeled as, “military style assault weapons and high capacity magazines.” The legislation goes alongside President Obama’s series of executive actions and proposals to supposedly limit gun violence in the wake of multiple mass shootings, most recently one that left over 20 children dead in Newtown, Connecticut.

A report by the liberal leaning Washington Post (which itself has heavily favored strict gun control for years) further explained what would be banned under the legislation that if passed would become permanent.

The “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013″ is a much more far-reaching proposal than the federal ban that expired in 2004,” reported the Washington Post.

“The proposal would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing or importation of more than 150 specific firearms, including semiautomatic rifles or pistols that can be used with a detachable or fixed ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and have specific military-style features, including pistol grips, grenade launchers or rocket launchers.”

More specific details as to what the legislation will do includes: (Courtesy of

The bill would ban the future sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of 157 specific kinds of semi-automatic guns and impose the same restrictions on ammunition magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. It would also ban rifles, handguns and shotguns that accept detachable magazines and have certain physical characteristics, including a pistol grip or folding stock.


The proposal includes some provisions that represent a significant expansion of the earlier ban and are likely to fan fears among gun owners that their Second Amendment rights are being compromised.

Most prominently, the bill addresses the millions of semi-automatic guns and large-capacity ammunition magazines that are already in private owners’ possession today.

It would require background checks on all such firearms if they are sold or transferred— including from one private citizen to another — and it would ban the future sale of large-capacity magazines even if those magazines are currently in their owners’ hands legally.

It would impose a “safe storage requirement” for firearms currently in existence, and it includes a voluntary gun-buyback program designed to encourage gun owners to turn over their firearms in exchange for money provided through a Justice Department grant program.

The so called unveiling of the legislation was a literal theatrical performance, complete with numerous gun grabbing lawmakers, a display of “assault” rifles that was actually against the law in DC, and a multitude of survivors and family members of mass shootings throughout the country.

The group in attendance had absolutely no problem using dead children to push their agenda in what has amounted into a massive psychological operation against the American people.

For their part, the corporate media, most notably CNN and MSNBC (although at least MSNBC doesn’t try to pretend they are bipartisan) has cheered the legislation, with Wolf Blitzer displaying a banner across the screen that included the pictures of all the children killed in the Sandy Hook Mass Shooting as if supporting the proposed law is somehow supporting the dead children.

In a response ridiculed by the corporate media, the NRA had this to say:

Senator Feinstein has been trying to ban guns from law-abiding citizens for decades. It’s disappointing but not surprising that she is once again focused on curtailing the Constitution instead of prosecuting criminals or fixing our broken mental health system.

The American people know gun bans do not work and we are confident Congress will reject Senator Feinstein’s wrong-headed approach.

The fight over this proposed direct attack on the 2nd Amendment is already being geared up, with the corporate media and the gun control lobby openly admitting that it faces an uphill battle but at the same time claiming that its what a majority of Americans actually want.

Through the use of rigged and or biased polling data, the entire mainstream media, in conjunction with those in power who are pushing this public agenda of disarming the American people, continue to claim that a majority supports strict gun control.

In reality, groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America have seen a huge increase in membership and any real sort of polling and gathering of public sentiment shows that most are horrified over what they believe is or will eventually lead to an outright ban of private firearm ownership.

The law faces an uphill battle NOT because of gun manufacturers or shadowy lobbyists twisting the arms of lawmakers in the night, rather it faces this battle because the American people support and will continue to support the private ownership of firearms, including semi automatic weapons that police forces nationwide already use.

Full Article

Serious questions on guns for felons

We’re concerned by a bill in the legislature that allows non-violent felons to legally own guns.
Posted: 01/24/2013 12:01:00 AM MST

By The Denver Post Editorial Board

Perry Buck, who is now a Republican state representative from Windsor, is seen in 2010 with her husband Ken Buck, the Weld County district attorney. (Ken Buck was a U.S. Senate candidate at the time.)

A bill allowing certain felons in Colorado to legally own a gun is, in a word, concerning.

Before state lawmakers take any step toward loosening the prohibition of gun ownership by felons, they should thoroughly explore the potential consequences — intended and unintended — of House Bill 1085.

This idea strikes us as part and parcel of the gun rights restoration movement, as it is called, that has gained traction in recent years.

The New York Times published an exhaustive story in 2011 about the movement and the dangers of restoring gun ownership rights to previously convicted felons.

To be sure, many of the anecdotes and statistics cited in the piece pertained to violent felons who had regained the right to own a firearm.

HB 1085, sponsored by state Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, would target non-violent felons. Those who had been convicted of burglary, arson or use of force still would be precluded from owning a gun.

Buck told The Denver Post her husband, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, had a hand in shaping her ideas for the measure.

Ken Buck told The Post: “Nonviolent felons are no more likely to commit a violent act in the future than non-felons are, so it is irresponsible to prohibit people from being able to protect their homes or hunt or other legal and good uses for firearms … .”

What exactly does unbiased research say about non-violent felons regaining the legal right to own a firearm? Data on the topic are hard to come by.

Studies of recidivism rates, however, suggest that the longer a convicted felon does not reoffend, the less likely they will. If the legislature were to consider this idea at all, it should include a timeframe.

And what of the restoration process itself? Shouldn’t there be a forum for prosecutors and victims, who could bring valuable information to the table, to air concerns about allowing a convicted felon, even those deemed non-violent, to be able to own a gun?

Read more

Did the gun permit map lead to a burglary?

(Rick Moran) That’s what authorities are wondering as a burglary targeted a gun owner’s gun safe.



A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars’ target was the homeowner’s gun safe.

At least two burglars broke into a home on Davis Avenue at 9:30 p.m. Saturday but were unsuccessful in an attempt to open the safe, which contained legally owned weapons, according to a law enforcement source. One suspect was taken into custody, the source said.

The gun owner was not home when the burglary occurred, the source said. The victim, who is in his 70s, told Newsday on Sunday that he did not want to comment while the police investigation continues.

“The police are doing a full investigation,” the man said through a partially opened front door.

There was broken glass in the backyard Sunday and a ladder leading up to a second-story window. Neighbors on the street of modest, Colonial homes said they had heard about the burglary.

The homeowner’s name and address were included recently on the controversial interactive map of gun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties published on The Journal News’ website.

Neighbor John Mascia said he thought the gun permit database should not have been published.

“I could [not] care less what they have in their home,” Mascia said.


Not surprisingly, “A call for comment to The Journal News was not immediately returned.”

Full Article

CBI director: Universal gun background checks would strain system

Posted: 01/23/2013 04:26:05 PM MST
Updated: 01/24/2013 07:52:43 AM MST

By Ryan Parker
The Denver Post

At Colorado’s largest gun shop, Firing-Line, in Aurora, Monday, December 17, 2012, assault rifles are lined up for sale. RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)

Universal background checks for gun purchases would exhaust Colorado’s overwhelmed system and inflate wait times, according to the director of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Ronald Sloan, CBI director, told The Denver Post on Wednesday that proposed legislation would increase the volume of gun background checks “incredibly.”

“It’s going to take some time to chip away at the queue now,” Sloan said.

As of Wednesday, the CBI queue had dipped below 10,000 with wait times at about a week. At its peak about three weeks ago, there were more than 12,500 checks waiting in queue.

Tighter background checks — supported by both President Barack Obama and the National Rifle Association — could increase the amount of checks submitted to CBI by 40 percent, Sloan said.

“We would lose ground,” he said.

The universal gun proposal would require checks be run for individual, private sales of firearms.

Without additional resources, the already long Colorado wait times would lengthen, but the extent is unclear, Sloan said.

The longest wait time since mid-December was more than nine days, according to CBI data.

Prior to the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the background check process took a matter of minutes — and seldom longer than half a day.

In order to combat the unprecedented demand on the system and staff, CBI requested an additional $500,000 from the state. On Jan. 17, the state

legislature’s Joint Budget Committee denied the CBI request.Sloan said agency staff was disappointed by the outcome but wasted no time working through as many checks a day as possible.

Some lawmakers have suggested would-be gun buyers should pay for their own background checks, as opposed to money for the process coming out of the state’s general fund.

It is unclear what effect that would have on the overall process, Sloan said.

Full Article

Battle Over Gun Legislation Heats Up

By: Terence Burlij and Katelyn Polantz

THE MORNING LINE — January 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM EDT

One Million Moms for Gun Control; photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Not even a week into President Obama’s second term, the battle over guns is beginning to heat up.

On Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., will introduce a ban on assault weapons. The legislation would ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of assault weapons, as well as ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Feinstein helped push the first assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994, but it expired after 10 years and has not been renewed.

Feinstein’s effort faces not only an uphill climb in the Republican-controlled House, but in the Senate, where many Democratic members support gun rights.

“It is an uphill battle all the way,” Feinstein told USA Today. “That doesn’t mean the battle shouldn’t be waged.”

One Senate Democrat who has signaled discomfort with reinstating the assault weapons ban is Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Jeremy Peters of the New York Times traveled with Manchin to a constituent meeting, where the senator found attendees anxious over the talk of gun control efforts:

“How many of you all believe that there is a movement to take away the Second Amendment?” he asked.

About half the hands in the room went up.

Despite his best attempts to reassure them — “I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing” — they remained skeptical. “We give up our rights one piece at a time,” a banker named Charlie Houck told the senator.

If there is a path to new gun laws, it has to come through West Virginia and a dozen other states with Democratic senators like Mr. Manchin who are confronting galvanized constituencies that view any effort to tighten gun laws as an infringement.

The Washington Post’s Paul Kane, meanwhile, writes that Mr. Obama’s wide-ranging proposal to address gun violence could cause a split with one of his top allies on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.:

Reelected and unconcerned about ever having to face voters again, Obama seems determined to push a far-reaching agenda — on guns, climate change and gay rights, among other topics — that looks toward his presidential legacy. Reid (D-Nev.), significantly more encumbered, must worry about how to protect 20 Democratic-held Senate seats that will be up for grabs in 2014, while Republicans are defending only 14 spots.

For some Democrats up for reelection next year, supporting the president will be politically treacherous terrain, and no issue may capture that disconnect better than gun control.

Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Begich (Alaska) face reelection battles in states where gun control is politically unpopular, making their potential votes on the Obama proposals problematic.

A survey released Wednesday by Gallup found a majority of Americans support passage of nine key provisions put forward last week by Mr. Obama, including criminal background checks for all gun sales (91 percent in favor) and increased spending on mental health programs for young people (82 percent). Renewing the assault weapons ban received the backing of 60 percent of respondents, while 54 percent said they favored limiting ammunition to 10 rounds.

Full Article

Congressman: “Obama Only Upholds The Soviet Constitution”

Previously warned of coming tyranny under Obama

Steve Watson
Jan 24, 2013

Georgia congressman Paul Broun hit out this week at his favourite target, President Obama, stating that he has no concept of the US Constitution.

In an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Broun, a frequent critic of Obama noted “I think my role is to uphold support and defend our Constitution.”

“The Constitution I uphold and defend is the one I carry in my pocket all the time, the U.S. Constitution,” Broun added.

“I don’t know what Constitution that other members of Congress uphold, but it’s not this one. I think the only Constitution that Barack Obama upholds is the Soviet constitution, not this one. He has no concept of this one, though he claimed to be a constitutional lawyer.” the Congressman also said.

Congressman Broun has been a thorn in the side of Obama’s agenda since day one.

In 2009 he warned attendees of a town hall event that the Obama administration was planning to use a pandemic or a natural disaster to implement martial law in the United States.

Speaking at the North Georgia Technical College auditorium, Broun said that the “socialistic elite,” as well as Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were planning to exploit a crisis to create a favorable climate for their stalling political agenda.

“They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” he said. “We’ve seen that historically.”

He also spoke out against Obama’s plan to create a “national civilian security force,” warning that the program sounded like a 21st century Gestapo and that it was part of a move towards a Marxist dictatorship.

Full Article

Rolling out assault weapons ban, Perlmutter reads letter from Aurora victims

Posted on: 11:46 am, January 24, 2013, by ,

updated on: 10:39pm, January 24, 2013


DENVER — On Capitol Hill Thursday, nearly six weeks after the Newtown, Conn. shooting rampage that killed 20 first-graders, Colorado Rep. Ed Perlmutter joined other supporters of a new federal ban on some assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons and gave voice to victims of the Aurora theater shooting that took place last July.

Perlmutter, who is a co-sponsor of the legislation in the House, read a letter signed by the family members of seven different people who died in the theater shooting.

“Our loved ones were gunned down and an entire generation of our families taken away in a matter of seconds,” Perlmutter read. “We listened to the 911 tapes played in court and sat in agony as we heard 30 shots fired within 27 seconds, wondering if one of those bullets killed our children.

“Every day, our families struggle to get out of bed and try to survive through what is unbearable grief due to the loss of our loved ones – the senseless murder of our children who were riddled with bullets from semi-automatic assault weapons, one carrying high-capacity magazines,” the letter continued.

With assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles displayed on one side and police officers who support her proposal behind a team of supportive lawmakers, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said the goal is to “dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

Full Article

El Paso County passes measure defying Obama’s gun control orders

Posted: 01/23/2013 07:09:11 PM MST
Updated: 01/24/2013 04:06:48 PM MST

By Carlos Illescas
The Denver Post

El Paso County commissioners, from left, Amy Lathen, Sallie Clark and Peggy Littleton posed before construction started on the new shooting range at Fort Carson. (Gazette file, Tom Roeder)

El Paso County’s commissioners won’t enforce laws — federal or state — that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms and are prepared to face any financial consequences of not following federal law.

The five-member board may be the first elected panel in Colorado to pass a resolution challenging President Barack Obama’s 23 executive orders designed to crack down on gun violence, but others could soon follow.

Weld County’s commissioners on Monday will discuss a pro-Second Amendment resolution. And sheriffs in El Paso, Garfield, Larimer and Weld counties have announced similar stances.

County resolutions are typically symbolic gestures intended to show support for an issue.

Most, if not all, of the president’s executive orders mean little change for local law enforcement. And any new laws will certainly be challenged, with the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately deciding what is a violation of the Constitution and what is not.

But El Paso County’s commissioners don’t care.

“We’re being proactive and being pre-emptive,” said El Paso County Commissioner Peggy Littleton, who spearheaded the pro-Second Amendment measure that passed unanimously Tuesday. “We’re putting people on notice, whether it’s the state legislature or at the federal level.”

In his State of the State address earlier this month, Gov. John Hickenlooper called for an examination of Colorado’s gun laws and for background checks on all gun purchasers. Background checks are not currently required when the purchase is from a private individual.

Obama last week urged Congress to pass new laws on gun control, including universal background checks and bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. He also signed 23 executive orders that,

Hey, Obama: who’s really ginning up fear in the USA?

fearThursday, January 24, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) If your goal as a leader is to be an authoritarian and rule over people rather than represent them and govern on their behalf, then you’re probably a student of one of the most popular and oft-taught political principles throughout the ages: the use of fear.

In 1513, Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist and writer based in Florence during the Renaissance, defined the principle in The Prince, a political treatise: “[S]ince love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”

Hundreds of years later, Robert Higgs, senior fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute, expounded further upon this principle of using fear to govern:

To disregard fear is to place ourselves in possibly mortal jeopardy. Even the man who acts heroically on the battlefield, if he is honest, admits that he is scared. To tell people not to be afraid is to give them advice that they cannot take. Our evolved physiological makeup disposes us to fear all sorts of actual and potential threats, even those that exist only in our imagination.

The people who have the effrontery to rule us, who call themselves our government, understand this basic fact of human nature. They exploit it, and they cultivate it. Whether they compose a warfare state or a welfare state, they depend on it to secure popular submission, compliance with official dictates, and, on some occasions, affirmative cooperation with the state’s enterprises and adventures. Without popular fear, no government could endure more than twenty-four hours. David Hume taught that all government rests on public opinion, but that opinion, I maintain, is not the bedrock of government. Public opinion itself rests on something deeper: fear.

Texas sheriff joins growing list of those who will not tolerate unconstitutional gun grabs from feds

Thursday, January 24, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

sheriff(NaturalNews) In response to calls from President Obama and his allies in Congress for expanded gun control measures, a movement is spreading among local sheriffs: More of them are standing up and saying publicly they won’t enforce any new laws they consider unconstitutional, specifically any new statutes calling for outright gun bans.

The latest local law enforcement official to lay down a pro-gun gauntlet is Collin County, Texas, Sheriff Terry Box, who declared that neither he nor his deputies would enforce unconstitutional gun laws passed or decreed by those he calls misguided politicians.

‘I won’t participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our constitutional rights’

Box issued a statement recently laying out his position:

In light of recent events I feel I need to make a public statement of my views on this subject. As the Sheriff of Collin County, Texas, I have for the past 28 years served to protect and keep safe all citizens of our county, recognizing the trust placed in me with this profoundly important responsibility.

Unfortunately, the recent surge in the numbers of innocent victims who have died at the hands of unstable criminals has prompted politicians in Washington to seek to pass laws that would seriously erode the constitutional rights of innocent and law abiding citizens.

Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

As long as I remain Sheriff of Collin County, I will not participate in the actions of misguided politicians who seek to impede our citizen’s right to all of the privileges afforded by our Constitution.

Box, who is not new to his office and seeking a reputation, posted the statement on his personal Facebook page after he said he’d been contacted by hundreds of folks asking him to take the pro-gun stand.

Danny Glover shows astonishing ignorance of actual history in claim that Second Amendment was to ‘protect slavery’

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
Second Amendment(NaturalNews) To hear Hollywood star Danny Glover tell it, the writing and adoption of the Second Amendment was motivated by and predicated solely on racism, not as a means of national defense or as a bulwark against a potentially intrusive central government.

As most of today’s entertainment and political elite continue to mouth off about how certain types of guns must be limited or banned because they have little to do with hunting (their definition of the Second Amendment’s primary purpose), Glover has taken a different tact: He says the amendment was adopted to suppress African slaves and steal land and possessions from Native American Indians.

In a speech before a crowd of Texas A&M students recently, Glover – perhaps motivated by recent news regarding gun control or influence by director Quentin Tarantino’s fictional “Django Unchained,” in which a slave played by Jamie Foxx goes on a killing rampage and guns down whites – claimed that the origins of the Second Amendment were sinister.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans,” said Glover, who apparently cited little-or-no historical evidence to back up his outrageous statement.

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” said Glover, who had been invited (and paid) to speak in commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man who dedicated his entire life to unifying, not dividing, the country’s ethnic groups.

Gun Control: Focus On Manufacturers, Not Just Buyers, Study Shows

Science Daily

Jan. 23, 2013 — As the gun control debate continues, Kevin D. Bradford, an associate professional specialist in marketing at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, says the focus should be on those who distribute guns, not solely on those who buy them.

Bradford and a team of researchers conducted a first-of-its-kind study on the ways guns move from legal channels into the hands of criminals. In “Counter-marketing in the Courts: The Case of Marketing Channels and Firearms Diversion,” published in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, they examined 28,000 pages of court documents, looking at what kinds of guns were used in violent crimes and what kinds of safeguards specific gun manufacturers had in place for distribution.

“The gun industry is cloaked in secrecy,” Bradford says. “We found that 1 percent of gun dealers are responsible for 45 to 60 percent of guns involved in crimes. These dealers divert new guns intended for responsible owners to those that gun restrictions are meant to keep away from the weapons.”

Safeguards are reasonable and popular policies, such as background checks, for shipping dangerous things. Bradford says, shockingly, there are numerous gun manufacturers that do not require their collaborators to safeguard. His research found a negative relationship between implementing safeguards and guns being used in crimes.

Full Article

CIA Media Infiltration & Operation Mockingbird
January 23, 2012

From RT:

On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin takes a look at America’s history of government infiltration in news media citing the CIA’s secret cold-war program dubbed Operation Mockingbird.

Anonymous Calls for Civil War to Overthrow the US Government

Activist Post

In the latest video from Anonymous, they have called for the most aggressive action yet. They’re asking the American people to join them in a “call to arms” for the destruction and overthrow of the US Government.

In the statement, Anonymous says the government is calling them “terrorists” because they truly fear a people’s uprising.

“The United States Government insists on labeling us as terrorists. The question is, “who do we terrorize?” Is it probable that the United States government is truly afraid of we, the people?”

They are not calling for denial of service attacks on government websites or protests as is their normal modus operandi, but for freedom activists to join them in full-blown war to overthrow the US Government and return it to the control of the people.

“We are not calling upon the collective to deface or use a distributed denial of service attack on a United States government agency website, or affiliate. We are not calling upon the people to once again occupy a city or protest in front of a local building, This has not brought on us any legislative change or alternate law. It has only brought us bloodshed and false criticism. For the last 12 years, voting has been useless. Corporations and lobbyists are the true leaders of this country and are the ones with the power to control our lives, To rebuild our government, we must first destroy it.Our time for democracy is here, Our time for resolution is here, This is America’s time for revolution, To restore our constitutional rights, to once again, be free therefore, Anonymous along with the American people have decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms.”

The hacktivist collective lists a long train of abuses that can no longer be allowed:

  • We refuse to be a police state.
  • We refuse to be brutalized and dehumanized by the very people our tax dollars fund to protect our cities and streets.
  • We will not allow the government to control our destiny, our right to build a life for ourselves.
  • We demand freedom from government control, taxation, repossession and death.
  • You will not come to our doors and take our guns, our property, you will not force the citizens of this great country to participate in the unlawful act of government mandated healthcare.
  • We the people refuse to put in your control our health, our bodies, our minds, our lives.
  • We will not grant permission for the government to deploy drones over our homes and communities.
  • We must end the federal reserve. A private central bank should not issue our currency, set interest rates and run our economy. Rather, we need to return control over the currency to the American people where it belongs.

They claim that all peaceful attempts to affect change within the system have failed and the time for action is now.

“Our peaceful actions, patience and restraint have been demonstrated as we watched and waited for our Congress and Representatives to speak for the American citizens and protect us from the tyrant that sits in the oval office and happily strips the American people of our rights, one by one, executive order by executive order. We have waited long enough.”

Thousands rally across the country to support gun rights and freedoms

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

gun(NaturalNews) Scores of rallies held Jan. 20 around the country to demonstrate support for the Second Amendment and opposition to new gun control regulations proposed by President Obama and some Democrats in Congress drew thousands in a rare show of constitutional solidarity, reports said.

The “high noon” rallies, as they were called, sprang up following renewed debate over stricter gun control policies that are being pushed in the wake of the tragic murder of 20 young children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December.

“We are law-abiding citizens, business owners, military, and we are not going to be responsible for other people’s criminal actions,” former Marine Damon Locke said to applause at a Florida rally he helped organize, Reutersreported.

The American Revolution Started Over Disarmament
January 23, 2013

The American revolution started on April 19, 1775 in response to an attempt by the British regulars to disarm the militia of their stockpiles near Lexington. It became the shot heard ’round the world. The subsequent Constitution and Bill of Rights set up checks and balances, in part as a response to various types of British abuse and interference.

Today, the establishment has openly violated much the Constitution and Bill of Rights, wantonly spied on communications without warrant and staked TSA agents at airports to abuse the traveling public despite the 4th Amendment, and has conducted a long train of abuses. Now it seeks to dismantle the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, removing yet another important check on government power.

Watch this redux report on the Oath Keepers from 2009:

Full Article

Proof: The Founders Wanted Americans Armed

The 2nd Amendment is in place to discourage dictators and protect the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Aaron Dykes
January 22, 2012

The Founding Fathers agree: an armed population makes good government. Numerous quotes from the revolutionary era make their intent extremely clear — that individuals were meant to keep and bear arms for the protection of the country and the defense of its Constitution and Bill of Rights.


The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explicitly states that these amendments to the Constitution were put in place to restrain the federal government and discourage abuse. Ratified Dec. 15, 1791, it reads:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.


Meanwhile, history has shown that disarmed populations and dictators always go hand in hand, with abusers and seekers of power preferring a people unable to stand up for their rights and easy to trample and dominate.

Our birthright as Americans is at stake: if we don’t stand up to defend the 2nd Amendment, we stand to let all our other precious rights slip away, from freedom of speech on down.


“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.” – Joseph Stalin

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” – Anonymous American adage

“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” 
– Samuel Adams

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…” – Tench Coxe 1788

“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” – Joseph Stalin

“In earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.” – Zbigniew Brzezinski

“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.” – Joseph Stalin

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” – Joseph Stalin

“The only real power comes out of a long rifle.” – Joseph Stalin

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” 
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” – Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons), 1938

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
” –Thomas Paine

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” – Thomas Paine

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
” – Ben Franklin

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” – Joseph Stalin

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 
– Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?” – Patrick Henry

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” 
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” – George Mason

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” 
– Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

“The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War”, July, 1775

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao Zedong, “Problems of War and Strategy”, 1938

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, 1778

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” – Hubert Humphrey, “Know Your Lawmakers”, Guns magazine, February 1960

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” – Adolf Hitler, April 1942

“If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.” – Orrin Hatch, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” – William S. Burroughs, 1991

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
– George Washington

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

Rep. Charlie Rangel on Guns: ‘Some of the Southern Areas Have Cultures that we have to Overcome’

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 19:31


Gun Grab is About Power and Control


Christopher Greene explains that Americans will die after Obama’s executive order to ban guns in America.

Smith & Wesson Withdraws from Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 14:02
Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show Says No to Black Rifles

SPRINGFIELD, Mass.--( Smith & Wesson, a U.S. based leader in firearm manufacturing and design, today announced that the Company will not attend nor will it support or participate in the 2013 Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

The announcement comes after the decision of show management company, Reed Exhibitions, to prohibit the display of modern sporting rifles in this year’s event.

James Debney, President and CEO of Smith & Wesson, said, “”As a market leader in the firearm industry and an iconic brand that spans 160 years of American history, we believe it is important to make our position perfectly clear: We support the Second Amendment and the rights of our law-abiding customers to purchase these and all legal firearms.

Therefore, we are unable to support any organization or event that prohibits legal firearms, or otherwise restricts a citizen’s lawful and constitutional rights.””

About Smith & Wesson
Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC) is a U.S.-based leader in firearm manufacturing and design, delivering a broad portfolio of quality firearms, related products and training to the consumer, law enforcement, and military markets. The company’s brands include Smith & Wesson®, M&P® and Thompson/Center Arms™. Smith & Wesson facilities are located in Massachusetts and Maine. For more information on Smith & Wesson, call (800) 331-0852 or log on to

Kentucky Sheriff Says No to Obama’s Gun Ban Decree
Jan 22, 2013

Mike talks with Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman about his pledge to not enforce federal laws restricting the right to own firearms.


Sheriffs are key to protecting Americans from unconstitutional gun laws

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

sheriffs(NaturalNews) Local sheriffs are the preeminent legal authority in the country and have the power, by constitutional design, to prevent or refuse enforcement of federal statutes which violate the U.S. Constitution or their oaths of office, according to one former sheriff who has battled the Feds over gun laws and won.

Richard Mack, the one-time sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., said in a recent interview with that he joined with then-Rivalli County Sheriff Jay Printz in a successful lawsuit against the federal government during President Clinton’s terms during the 1990s to oppose provisions of the Brady Bill gun-control law.

Since winning that battle, Mack has been a leader in the movement emphasizing the roles and responsibilities of local sheriffs. And now that gun control is once again at the forefront of domestic policy, both inside the Obama White House and Congress, Mack says once more that hope remains in local law enforcement.

Groupon kills all gun-related deals, but not Denver Post

Tue., Jan. 22 2013 at 12:59 PM

In the wake of mass killings at the Aurora Century 16 and Connecticut’s Sandy Hook school, Groupon has reportedlydecided to drop all discounts and deals related to guns.Not so the Denver Post, whose Denver Daily Deals promotion currently features an offer related to a handgun-safety class.

This observation comes to us via media observer Jim Romenesko’s blog thanks to a reader, who writes, “Groupon has canceled all of its gun-related deals because of the Newtown shootings, but The Denver Post, which just published a six-month anniversary package on the Aurora theater massacre, has not followed suit.”

Here’s a look at the Post‘s latest appeal….

Jay Rockefeller Owns An AR-15 And Supports Obamas Gun Plan

By JG Vibes
January 22, 2012

All week the mainstream media has been repeating that Obama is planning new gun legislation, which may not be an all out confiscation, but will definetly continue the steepen the slippery slope down that path.

The majority of the ruling class who own guns are usually in favor of gun control, because it doesn’t apply to them and it allows them to gain more power and leverage over the people who are disarmed.

This is the case with Jay Rockefeller, as The Daily Mail reported that:

“Sometime in the 1970s, one of the senator’s cousins gave him a Colt AR-15 assault rifle. As the Daily Mail reported in August 1994, Rockefeller kept the shooting iron at his Pocahontas County estate for several years, along with other guns.

The senator told Daily Mail Washington correspondent Jack Deutsch he no longer used the gun but called it a “terrific weapon.”

In a more recent interview he told The Daily Mail that he was in full support of stricter gun control laws, despite his long history with what the government and media would consider “assault weapons”.

The article also stated that:

“Rockefeller indicated last week he would support the president’s proposals, saying Congress could protect West Virginia’s traditions of hunting and gun ownership while still looking for ways to prevent violence.”

“I support steps that build on these ideas, while making sure our hunters’ and sportsmen’s rights are protected,” he said in the statement.

He was the only member of West Virginia’s congressional delegation to express outright support for the president’s agenda.

The laws don’t apply to him anyway so it doesn’t really matter for him, there wont be any police searching through a Rockefeller’s house or car.

George Soros Think Tank Proposes 13 Pieces Of Emergency Gun Control Legislation
January 22, 2012

Today we reported that Jay Rockefeller fully supports Obama’s gun plan despite the fact that he owns an AR-15.

Now it seems that another ruling class control freak is jumping on the bandwagon as well.

None other than George Soros, has come forward, through his “Center for American Progress” think tank, and put forward 13 different pieces of legislation that would restrict gun ownership and use among peaceful people.

According to Breitbart:

“George Soros’ Center for American Progress (CAP) has published a list of 13 new pieces of legislation they claim we need right now, in the wake of the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary”

The full list of new restrictions are horrible, because there should be no restrictions or prohibition on anything that doesn’t violate another human beings health or property.

At face value they seem all warm and fuzzy, but the intention is to slowly chip away at various aspects of gun ownership until there is nothing left.

A breakdown and description of the following terms can be found on the think tanks website:

  • A background check for every gun sale
  • Prevent convicted stalkers from acquiring guns
  • Input all necessary records into the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System
  • Close the “terror gap”
  • Penalize states that fail to provide records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
  • Ensure that federal agencies provide required records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
  • Perform background checks on employees of federally licensed dealers during the course of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives audit inspections
  • Reregulate assault weapons
  • Ban high-capacity gun magazines
  • Require broader reporting of multiple sales of assault rifles
  • Strip riders from the administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget and all future budgets that restrict gun data collection and sharing
  • Treat gun trafficking as a serious crime
  • Begin the process of the FBI absorbing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

The most broad and overreaching of these proposals is the “closing of the terror gap”, this would ban gun ownership for anyone who falls on a government watch list.

In the past people have accidentally ended up on these lists, or ended up on them due to their political views, despite them being peaceful human beings.

Just this week we reported that A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.

So while all of these proposed measures may sound nice to people who are naive about the nature of government, it is just tyranny wrapped in the promise of security.


CIA and Pentagon have long-running influence over Hollywood’s representation of military

By Kay Steiger
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:03 EST

The CIA and the Pentagon pulled out all the stops for the creators of “Zero Dark Thirty,” staging interviews with officials and a Navy SEAL for an inside account of the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Critics praised the movie’s gritty and gripping feel but, with the film due for release in major European markets this week, controversy has erupted over claims that it justifies US agents’ use of torture on detainees.

The access granted to director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal has turned the Oscar-nominated movie into the most detailed public account that exists of the May 2011 raid on a Pakistani compound to kill Bin Laden.

Nate Jones of the National Security Archives research institute dubbed it “the closest thing to the official story behind the pursuit of bin Laden.”

Bigelow has been forced to release a statement denying widespread allegations that the film set out to justify or sanitize the “enhanced interrogation techniques” employed during the so-called ‘war on terror’.

Although the assistance offered to the “Zero Dark Thirty” crew sparked accusations that the White House used the movie as a propaganda tool, cooperation between Hollywood and the Pentagon or CIA is nothing new.

The first film ever to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards, “Wings” in 1929, featured dogfight scenes with bi-planes thanks to help from the army.

It was the beginning of a relationship that has grown over decades.

The film industry covets access to hardware and expertise that only the armed forces can provide, while in return, defense officials want to burnish the military’s image on the big screen.

The Pentagon’s criteria for justifying cooperation on any film or television project is loosely defined, but until recently has never been seriously questioned by Congress.

“It just basically says: ‘Is it something that might be of benefit for recruiting and retention? And/or is it something that might tell the American public more about the US military?” explained Philip Strub, who leads the Pentagon’s liaison unit with the entertainment industry.

Full Article

Stevie Wonder tells Piers Morgan: I’m buying a gun to mock ‘crazy’ gun laws

By David Edwards
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 14:00 EST

Stevie Wonder speaks to Piers Morgan

Stevie Wonder is suggesting that he could soon be heading to his local store to prove that gun laws in the United States are so ridiculously lax that even a legally blind can buy a firearm.

CNN host Piers Morgan spoke to Wonder on Monday before his Inaugural Ball performance at the Washington Convention Center to find out what the musician thought of President Barack Obama’s second inaugural speech.

“It was a great speech,” Wonder said. “We can’t talk about it and just talk about it, we got to be about it. We’ve got to take off the gloves of being a politician and really look at the reality of how we are and where we are as human beings on this planet. And we’ve got to do and make this planet more green, we’ve got to do something about the various things that he’s talked about, and the rights of women and people in general.”

He also said that people shouldn’t just watch tragedies like the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut on the news “and then after it dies down, we wait for it to happen it again.”

“I was thinking, you know, because I saw you on the TV talking about the whole gun [control] thing, and I was talking to one of my friends and I said, ‘You know what? You should go get me a gun or me go with you to get a gun and then show how easy it is for me to get a gun,’” Wonder explained. “Imagine me with a gun. It’s just crazy.”

“I think we have to do something about it and I’m hoping in these next four years with an idea that I’ve come up with that I can do something about how we can come up with a solution, because there’s a solution to any problem and I think we just have to get to it.”

Ted Nugent claims his ‘buddies’ are willing to start an armed revolt

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 13:07 EST

Firearms enthusiast Ted Nugent, appearing in a Discovery Channel special. Photo: Screenshot via

Detroit-born southern rockabilly Ted Nugent isn’t known for moderation, but from the sound of his latest comments, the re-election of President Barack Obama (D) has made him ever more extreme.

Speaking to fans during an NBC-sponsored gun show, Nugent said that Obama “is attempting to re-implement the tyranny of King George that we escaped from in 1776,” adding: “If you want another Concord bridge, I’ve got some buddies.”

The comment was a reference to the Battle of Concord, in which a British soldier broke a standoff and fired upon assembled American militiamen, in what later became known as “the shot heard around the world” that helped launch the Revolutionary War.

He added that Obama “hires, appoints and associates with communists,” and that he’s “an evil, dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom. And we need to fix this as soon as possible.”

Speaking to conspiracy website World Net Daily earlier in January, the National Rifle Association board member said he believes a new era of civil rights is dawning — one in which gun lovers must become “the Rosa Parks.”

His comments to WND came roughly one month after his show “Ted Nugent’s Gun Country” was forever scrapped by The Discovery Channel, in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. Nugent previously told fans that it was a planned series, but a Discovery spokesperson confirmed to Raw Story that no such plans were ever laid.

Nugent also found himself face to face with Secret Service agents last April after he urged fans to “chop [Democrats’] heads off in November,” during the presidential election. He also warned, “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

CNN ‘Communist News Network’ trying to shove gun control down our throats

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

gun(NaturalNews) The war on guns is now in full swing and most of the corporate media has dutifully stepped up to play the role of liberal-progressive echo chamber, touting phony polls that asked pre-ordained “gun control” questions, featuring a parade of left-wing politicos and hacks reciting selected anti-gun talking points and advancing straw man arguments as well as “common sense” and “reasonable” policy measures that serve to limit your Second Amendment rights.

Some outlets – ABC, the Washington Post, The New York Times, MSNBC – are well-established left-wing shills, so it’s no surprise they have taken President Obama’s position on pushing for new gun control policies. But one media company – CNN – has been particularly hypocritical in this debate because its editors still try to position the network as politically centrist, though its left-wing anti-gun bias is just as pronounced as its media peers.

Though plenty of journalists expressed legitimate, heartfelt empathy for the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and their families, CNN used the tragedy in the same way Obama, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a litany of other liberal-progressives have done: to callously push an anti-gun political agenda while demonizing tens of millions of law-abiding Americans.

After all, in the words of former Obama White House Chief of Staff and current mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Piers Morgan: Use Machine Guns to “Take Out” Critics

Establishment attempts to make firearms ownership taboo

By Paul Joseph Watson
January 22, 2013

CNN host Piers Morgan has built his case for gun control on an apparent concern for victims of gun violence. However, that concern was not evident when he told an interviewer of his desire to see his critics taken out with machine guns.

Full Article

Rep. Steve King: Gun safety advocates are ‘anti-Second Amendment people’

By David Edwards
Monday, January 21, 2013 10:11 EST

Steve King speaks to CNN

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) suggested that advocates of gun safety proposed measures to curb violence after the December massacre of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut because they are “anti-Second Amendment people” and want to end the right to bear arms.

In an interview before President Barack Obama’s second inaugural speech, CNN’s John King asked the Iowa tea party-backed congressman if Republicans were “chastened” after losing seats in the House, Senate and the presidency.

“A few of them are, but I’m certainly not,” King replied. “And those of us that won the election, we see our constituents as deserving the best representation we can give them. We won elections too. So, this is an interesting day today, this peaceful transfer in a constitutional way of the power envisioned by our founding fathers. And they understood the separation of powers. They knew there was going to be a clash and a confrontation and a struggle between the parties, but we also know we have to run this government.”

“So, it’s going to be interesting as this unfolds,” he added. “This should be a healing day. And then tomorrow morning we can start that harder work.”

On the subject of “that harder work,” the CNN host wondered how King felt about Obama’s proposals for universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

“Those people that want to confiscate guns — the anti-Second Amendment people — took an opportunity as soon as the Sandy Hook tragedy took place,” the Iowa Republican explained.

Mayans actually predicted rise of ‘pale obese gun monsters’

By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, January 21, 2013 14:37 EST

Mayan art. Photo:

In a bit of satire published Monday, faux news website The Onion cleared up all the confusion about what was supposed to be the end of the world round about December 12, 2012.

Turns out, the Mayans never predicted the end of the world. They actually predicted the rise of “pale obese gun monsters.”

But we here in America wouldn’t know anything about that, now would we?

This video was published to YouTube on January 21, 2013.


Obama’s Target is Not Just Republicans, but the Constitution Itself

Joel B. Pollak
January 21, 2013

President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address has been described as one of the most partisan ever given, heralding a sweeping left-wing agenda and demonizing his opponents. But President Obama’s target is not simply the Republican Party: it is the Constitution itself, and the values of liberty that it enshrines.

In the address itself, President Obama made the case that liberty is not timeless; that it must adjust to the times, and that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”–not to defend those freedoms from infringement, but to give them “meaning” through government regulation and redistribution.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer put the point more bluntly in remarks published earlier today:

Read more

50 State Open Carry Demonstration Feb. 8th; Getting Out The Word

By Bob Powell
January 21, 2012

On February 8th 2013, in accordance with state law and the 2nd Amendment, there will be peaceful Open Carry demonstrations taking on the Capitol steps of all 50 states.

In Michigan a team of volunteers is organizing the event, and this writer will be speaking in support of the Constitution, exercising my 1st Amendment right to free speech in defense of the 2nd Amendment.

In this episode of The Truth Is Viral, I take you through the streets of Alpena Michigan as I go door-to-door to businesses in the downtown area; openly carrying a sidearm in accordance with Michigan law.

Rather than just surprise local law enforcement with my sudden appearance as some reporters have done, I decided to speak with the Michigan State Patrol, the Alpena County Sheriff’s Office, and the City of Alpena Police Department, letting them know of my intentions beforehand.

As a result of my conversations with local LEOs, I was not only told that it was my right to walk around town openly carrying a firearm, but I was encouraged to do so.

I was even offered tips on where I could place my flyers, and informed that I needed a permit to solicit from the city.

The Alpena City Police Department especially went out of their way to make my little one man protest a success; in accordance with Federal, State, and Local laws.

Full Article

South Carolina Adds Voice to Nationwide Pro-Gun Demonstrations

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

On January 19, I attended a pro-gun rights rally on the steps of the South Carolina Statehouse in Columbia, South Carolina. The rally was a part of a larger series of demonstrations organized at State Capitols all across the United States in order to voice support for gun rights as well as opposition to the recent unveiling of a variety of unconstitutional Executive Orders and legislative proposals from the gun-grabbing Obama administration as well as other anti-gun politicians at both the Federal and local levels.

The rallies were being referred to both as “Gun Appreciation Day,” and “Guns Across America” and were almost exclusively organized via social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

Although the turnout at the event I attended, which was made up of about three hundred people when I arrived an hour late, was not what one would consider to be stellar, the national turnout was also not merely in the “hundreds” as CBS News has deceptively reported, but in the thousands.

Still, while the overall turnout was low, the fact is that the events were plagued with significant confusion and lack of resources, a notable lack of promotion from the NRA, the largest gun-rights organization in the country with unparalleled influence in the gun-owning community. Instead, the rallies were organized and promoted by smaller nationwide organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights and Palmetto Gun Rights.

Thus, being handicapped by lack of real media attention, reliance on social media for advertisement, lack of support from larger organizations, very short notice, and the unfortunate but general apathy expressed by many gun-owners, the rallies were not capable of drawing out the millions we would have preferred. Still, the numbers were by no means a failure and one can only hope that they are merely the first shot to be fired (pun not intended) in a larger wave of indignation coming to the country.

Regardless, the South Carolina demonstration took the form of most other political rallies on the Statehouse steps, full of signs with pictures of guns, the text of the Second Amendment, and other pro-gun slogans as well as scheduled speakers, communicating with the crowd via a bullhorn. When the scheduled speakers were finished, members of the crowd were invited to come up to the “podium” and speak.

Most of the speakers, at least the ones I was present for, discussed many of the facts gun rights activists are already familiar with – crime and homicide statistics, the need for self-defense, and anecdotal stories about how gun ownership has personally kept them safe.

Many of the speakers, however, did address the issue that the Second Amendment not only exists for self-defense from individual predators but also from tyrannical government. Surrounded by police (who, to their credit, acted in a very professional manner for the duration of the event), it seemed that the speakers and the crowd were content to dance around the issue that it would be the very police and military they were “thanking for their service” who would be tasked with conducting the particulars of any confiscation scenario, thus pitting the two against one another.

This potentiality was no longer brushed over when a member of the crowd walked up to speak through the megaphone. Very calmly, he stated something to the effect of the following,

I’ve heard a lot of things get said up here today and I’m not disagreeing with them. I’m not looking to disagree with them. But I keep hearing that the second amendment is about self-defense and how guns keep us safe. Let’s be real. Guns are there to shoot bad people in the face. And the Second Amendment is there for when our government becomes so tyrannical that we can’t take it anymore, we can turn our guns against them and shoot them in the face. And the reality is when tyranny comes to us, it will be wearing a uniform. And a badge. As long as it is words on paper, these meetings like this matter. But when it stops being just words on paper, and it becomes reality, then we are going to have to make some hard decisions. And there may come a time when we have to shoot law enforcement in the face. Now I sincerely hope our local officers will refuse to try and confiscate weapons if they are given the orders. But there are going to be those who don’t refuse. And that’s something we all are going to have to think about. [1]

While his statement obviously stunned the crowd (ironically, the police did not seem as shocked or alarmed as the audience), the gentleman, whose name is unknown this writer, did address an issue that many have worried over but have been afraid to voice, particularly in venues such as a public demonstration. Without a doubt, it is certainly a scenario none of us would like to see. Unfortunately, if current trends continue, it may be a scenario that many gun owners find themselves in.

In addition, another man who rose to speak began to educate to the demonstrators about the billions of rounds of ammunition that the Department of Homeland Security has recently purchased, a fact that was clearly unknown to many of those present in the audience.

In the end, while the numbers across the nation and in the state were not what we would like to see, one positive note is that a successful demonstration by pro-gun rights activists was launched by smaller, state-wide and independent organizations as opposed to the traditional organizations which have historically been behind such rallies.

Even with such obstacles in their paths, these organizers and activists were able to create a nationwide demonstration that still managed to draw the attention of even the mainstream media.

Let’s hope the January 19th rallies were only the beginning.

[1] This is a paraphrase and should not be taken as a direct quote as the statement was not recorded. The statement is transcribed as well as possible and the integrity of the statement remains intact.

Bill Clinton: Gun Control Push Bringing Back the Tea Party

AWR Hawkins
January 21, 2012

When Republicans won historic landslide victories in 1994, it was due in large part to the fact that a relatively moderate Democrat Party had promoted and passed an “Assault Weapons Ban” (AWB)which cut across the grain of gun owners of all parties and all walks of life.

Fast forward to 2013, gun owners of all walks of life exist in even greater numbers, and the Democrat Party is showing them even greater disrespect.

And now, radicalized Democrats are pushing a new AWB, which contains bans on many semi-automatic handguns, 20 and 30 round ammunition magazines, private gun sales, and transfer of firearms between family members. Bill Clinton is warning Democrats to stop.

Drunk on the power they weld in the Senate and the White House, Democrats have once again underestimated to the passions of the common man and stand at the threshold of sparking a grassroots extravaganza that will sweep them out of power in 2014.

Speaking to Democrat donors from the business world, Clinton said of gun owners: “A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the [politicians] proposing these [gun control measures].” He went to intimate that these worlds are increasingly in conflict, and that the gun control push could be setting Democrats up for a long fall with a hard landing.

Clinton warned that gun owners cannot be “patronized” and that it’s a mistake to “[look] down your nose at them.”

As he spoke, it was clear that Clinton thinks Obama may be overplaying his hand, giving birth to a reinvigorated Tea Party movement that is already diminishing votes for Democrats in 2014. In hopes of stopping this momentum shift, Clinton warned that the tactics Obama used to win in southern states like Florida has to be employed now, as “that’s the only way [Democrats] will ever be able to even up votes in the midterms as [issues like guns] come up.”

The bottom line: Democrats who know history know that this new gun control push is not going to end well at the polls.

Obama’s Gun Control Campaign Doomed to Fail
January 21, 2013

Cam Edwards talks to Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski.

Put Not Your Trust In Federalized Sheriffs

William N. Grigg
January 21, 2013

He sold his soul at a steep discount: Richard Rich (l.) displays the badge he earned
through collaboration.

“You look depressed.”

“I was lamenting. I’ve lost my innocence.”

“You lost that some time ago. If you’ve only just noticed, it can’t have been very important to you.”

Exchange between Thomas Cromwell — the Machiavellian Lord Chancellor of England — and Richard Rich, an ambitious functionary who had sold his soul in a buyer’s market, from A Man for All Seasons.

“I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen of Smith County,” insisted Sheriff Larry Smith. The sheriff wants his constituents to believe that he would refuse to participate in a federally mandated gun grab, or permit one to be carried out by federal officials within his jurisdiction. Yet ten days before Smith offered that assurance, his office had taken part in an early-morning SWAT rampage throughout East Texas in which 73 warrants were served as part of the federal government’s patently unconstitutional war on drugs.


During a December 2011 campaign debate, Smith said that he wanted to “invest more resources” – that is, redirect wealth plundered from the productive – into a “Drug Task Force,” and insisted that under his administration the Sheriff’s Office would embrace a “Task Force mentality” in dealing with law enforcement issues.

The problem with the mindset Sheriff Smith was extoling should become obvious once it’s understood that the German term for “task force” is einsatzgruppe. By their actions many multi-jurisdictional task forces in contemporary America are increasingly faithful to their historic pedigree.

Smith’s devotion to narcotics task forces might be the residue of his early law enforcement career, which included two years as a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration – an agency that could be considered the mentally deficient stepchild of the CIA, which is the world’s largest narcotics syndicate.


Twenty years ago, an ATF einsatzgruppe launched a murderous raid against an isolated religious group at Mt. Carmel outside Waco. The warrant they were enforcing was clotted with falsehoods. The investigation that produced it was haphazard. Its target, Vernon Howell — aka David Koresh — was suspected of trivial violations of federal firearms regulations, and had indicated his eagerness to cooperate with ATF investigators to clear the record.

If an arrest were to be carried out – and one was neither necessary, nor justified – it could have been performed during one of Koresh’s frequent solitary jogging expeditions, or one of his routine visits to town. Instead, the ATF – seeking a dramatic, high-profile enforcement action to generate headlines for the scandal-plagued agency – staged a paramilitary assault on the religious sanctuary. They did so even though the raiders had lost the element of surprise, and when they arrived at Mt. Carmel they opened fire on the building despite the fact that an unarmed Koresh had confronted the stormtroopers with his hands up, pleading for them not to shoot.

Four ATF agents were killed during that Sunday morning raid. Their deaths were utterly unnecessary, and entirely well-deserved: They were attempting to murder innocent people, and the would-be victims acted within their rights in using deadly force to defend their homes against that assault. The criminal clique that had sent the ATF to attack the Davidians sent a larger contingent to lay siege to their residence, and eventually arranged for the holocaust that annihilated 76 people, including seventeen small children.


Like most gun owners in Eastern Texas, Smith can remember where he was the morning of April 19, 1993, when the Mt. Carmel refuge went up in flames. He was on the scene as an agent of the ATF, which he had joined in 1989. Smith believes that the initial ATF raid on the Davidians was justified, and that the entire operation was at least a partial success. It’s doubtful that his assessment is shared by many gun owners in his jurisdiction.

Larry Smith is among dozens of sheriffs who have gone on record in opposition to the Obama administration’s impending firearms restrictions. All of them have promised to intervene to protect their counties from federal tyranny. And all of them are active collaborators in the same.


Kieran Donahue was sworn in as the new Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho on January 14. Three days later he joined the ranks of “refusenik sheriffs” by promising not to implement any federal gun policy at odds with his responsibility to “uphold the Constitution.”

Unfortunately, that resolute statement of principled defiance was fatally undermined when Donahue – in the same press conference — expressed his willingness to continue his office’s collaboration in the federal “war on drugs” and displayed his indecent eagerness to accept new federal subsidies to deploy deputies to guard public schools as soon as the funds are available.

Wendy Olson, the official assigned by the regime to act as the federal regime’s legal sub-commissarina for Idaho, has said that her office will fully comply with new federal firearms mandates. She pointedly noted that the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office – like most others in the country – has officers who are cross-deputized to serve on federal einsatzgruppen. During last year’s campaign the future sheriff proudly boasted of his work as an “undercover officer” with the FBI-supervised METRO Violent Crime and Gang Task Force.

“In these changing and difficult economic times it is a great benefit to have all law enforcement agencies working together in order to share costs and resources,” insisted Donahue. Those words will almost certainly come back to haunt Canyon County gun owners when – not “if” – the Feds make it clear that they are willing to “share resources” only with sheriff’s offices who are on board with the gun grab.


Donahue insisted on playing coy about the fact that he’s for sale. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims was shameless. She told the local ABC affiliate that while she will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws, she also “backs the added funding for local law enforcement, especially in schools.”

Her office has a huge budget, a small but significant portion of which is derived from proceeds seized through a federally supervised “asset forfeiture” program.

In 2009, Mims was the “local” face that was pasted onto the Obama administration’s “Operation Save Our Sierra” marijuana crack-down, which was personally supervised by federal Drug War Commissar Gil Kerlikowske. This campaign involved 300 personnel from local, state, and federal agencies – including military pilots that flew Black Hawk helicopters over targeted areas. The manpower and hardware were deployed in a mission best described as militarized horticulture. It’s quite easy to see how the personnel and assets used against “illegal” plants could be employed to confiscate “illegal” firearms in the future.


A few years ago, when Mims and her department faced a $4 million budget deficit, the Fresno County commission had to scrounge up $10.6 million in plundered funds to prevent layoffs in the Sheriff’s Office. That money most likely won’t be available next time Sheriff Mims wants to avoid handing pink slips to her deputies. It’s quite easy to imagine a scenario in which her federal supervisors will introduce her to a new variety of alchemy — converting confiscated “illegal” firearms into federal subsidies.

Four sheriffs in Oregon have announced their opposition to the renewed campaign to disarm citizens. Among them is Sheriff Brian Wolfe of Malheur County (who, in the interests of full disclosure, is a childhood friend). In a letter to Vice President Biden, Sheriff Wolfe declared: “I believe that the Constitution stands above all laws and executive orders of this Country. I want to be very clear that no one employed on our team at the Malheur County Sheriff’s Office will enforce or support any laws or executive orders that are not consistent with the Constitution of this great land.”


If only those inspiring words were consonant with Sheriff Wolfe’s actions. Like every other sheriff in the country, Brian Wolfe violates the Constitution on a routine basis.

Last August, the Malheur County Sheriff’s Department casually announced that it had found several small marijuana gardens during a two-week aerial surveillance operation conducted with the help of the National Guard.

Acting as the department’s official stenographer, the Argus Observer newspaper reported that Sheriff Brian Wolfe will now “contact property owners and acquire search warrants if needed.” Warrants would not be necessary, Wolfe observed, if the property owners consented to the searches. The Sheriff pointed out that the plants may be part of legal medicinal marijuana operations, or could have been planted without the owner’s knowledge or consent.


At this point an actual journalist would have asked Wolfe why his office was conducting warrantless aerial searches of private property without probable cause. After all, the Sheriff has admitted that none of the property owners was a criminal suspect.

The Malheur County Sheriff’s Department spends part of each summer arresting marijuana plants – that is, dispatching its SWAT team to barren locations in rural Oregon to clear out patches of marijuana.

Sheriff Wolfe insists this is necessary to “protect the public,” which is more acutely threatened by the unconstitutional, paramilitary operations of his own department. Wolfe’s department spends a great deal of time seizing contraband and prosecuting people who possess it. That experience will prove quite useful when – once again, not “if” – the Feds decide to treat legally owned firearms as illicit contraband.

There isn’t a single county sheriff’s office in the country that hasn’t compromised itself by accepting federal funds, and collaborating in unconstitutional federal enforcement operations. They’ve long since lost their innocence, but are pretending that they’ve just noticed that fact.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Feds to prohibit the consumption of narcotics or any other substance. Indeed, last time the Feds undertook a campaign of national prohibition, they had to change the Constitution in order to do so. Unless they’re investigating charges of treason or counterfeiting, sheriffs should not collaborate with the Feds – and in such circumstances the Feds themselves should be treated as the primary suspects.

If you take the nickel, you take the noose. If a sheriff’s office receives so much as a farthing of federal funding, it will be subject to federal mandates. That principle was underscored about seven years ago in the case of Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old video blogger imprisoned for refusing to turn over a portion of footage he shot of tumultuous street protests during the G-8 summit in San Francisco.


The Feds claim that Wolf, who spent two-thirds of a year in prison on civil contempt charges, possessed footage of a police car being set on fire. Wolf maintained that he didn’t have the material the Feds were after, and that under California’s very liberal journalist shield law, he wasn’t required to turn over his confidential, unpublished material. A Federal District Court Judge ignored Wolf’s argument and incarcerated him in a detention center in Dublin, California for contempt.

The alleged assault on a San Francisco police car would be a municipal matter, and the California shield law is obviously a question of state law. Why was this dealt with in a federal court?

As Time magazine pointed out: “The Feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the police car is partly U.S. government property since the SFPD receives federal anti-terrorism money.”

Note well that the Feds didn’t claim that the regime paid for the specific cars that were reportedly destroyed, only that the police department had been subsumed into the federal law enforcement apparatus because it had received some quantity of Homeland Security funding.

What this means, in principle, is that any police agency that receives a dime of federal Homeland Security money is effectively an appendage of the Department of Homeland Security (or, to use the appropriate German expression, the Heimatsicherheitsdienst).

This is obviously true of municipal police departments, which are innately illegitimate paramilitary bodies in no way accountable to the public they supposedly serve. We’re invited to believe that local elected sheriffs are different – at least where the incipient gun grab is concerned.


The ranks of the refuseniks will continue to expand, and they will feed gun owners a steady diet of bold talk about their willingness to interpose on behalf of their constituents if the Feds come for their guns. Some of them may be sincerely committed to do so. But until they stop actively collaborating in existing federal abuses, why should we assume they would be willing to take the side of the public against the Feds when the Regime decides to come for our guns?

Full Article

OMG! sells fully-automatic assault rifle with 18-round magazines marketed to children, without background checks

Monday, January 21, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Nerf(NaturalNews) Holy cow, the gun grabbers were right! You actually CAN buy full-auto guns online! Imagine my absolute horror when I discovered that you can purchase a full-auto, high-capacity, rapid-fire assault weapon at for under a hundred dollars without even going through a background check!This gun, shown in an actual photo below, features:

• A defensive “blast shield”
• Three high-capacity 18-round magazines
• A rapid fire rate of 3 rounds per second
• Configurable support for “attack mode”

New York public school lockdown

The gun is apparently made by a military weapons manufacturer called “Nerf.” I’m not familiar with Nerf, but Nerf guns are extremely dangerous to society, according to New York school officials. Last week, they thrust one of their schools into a full lockdown over a lime green Nerf gun, reports Fox NY.

As Fox News continues:

A 911 caller told Nassau County Police she saw a suspicious teen at about 7:38 a.m. Tuesday wearing a black jacket and carrying a black backpack at Elmont Memorial high School in Elmont. The caller said he was also carrying a lime green gun. A SWAT team searched the school room by room. Parents were allowed to pick up their children early Tuesday afternoon. They eventually found the toy lime green and yellow lever action Nerf gun in a student locker.

Here is an actual image of a murder weapon manufactured by “Nerf:”

It’s scary! We should ban it!

Law Would Force Gun Owners to “Surrender” Magazines to Police

New York’s ‘Safe Act’ continues to cause controversy

Paul Joseph Watson
January 21, 2013

New York’s Safe Act will mandate that all gun owners “surrender” magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds to law enforcement officials, according to a fact sheet released to accompany the new law.

A 4 page fact sheet released yesterday on the website states, “If you own a large capacity magazine greater than 10 round capacity that was a grandfathered magazine as a result of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban, within a year, you must do one of the following: dispose of it to another person outside New York State, surrender it to law enforcement officials, or permanently alter such to only accept 7 rounds.” (emphasis added)

The warning will only increase fears that a widespread gun and ammunition confiscation program could be in the works. As we highlighted last week, back in December, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo admitted that “confiscation could be an option,” when it came to enforcing the new law. However, provisions in the original bill that included confiscation were removed in order to prevent the legislation from being voted down.

Sheriffs across the country have put the Obama administration on notice that they will not carry out gun or ammunition confiscation programs if similar laws are passed locally or nationally. However, not a single Sheriff from New York or other cities with stringent gun control have joined the chorus.

Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that laws like the Safe Act could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America.

“Most people are law-abiding citizens and may go ahead and sell those or turn those over, but you’re going to have a fraction of people that are going to take a stand, and I can just predict a Waco-style standoff in some rural area and it’s not going to end well,” Mayor King told Fox 23 News.

As Martin Hill points out, people in New York will also “be required to give their social security number and other personal data,” as part of the new law if they own a pistol.

“Every 5 years you will need to verify the following information on your pistol permit to the New York State Police: name, DOB, gender, race, residential address, social security number, the firearms possessed, and if you want, your e-mail address. The purpose of the recertification is to update information,” states the document.

Thousands of protesters gathered at the Capitol building in Albany, New York on Saturday to protest the Safe Act, which passed New York’s Assembly on a 104 to 43 vote.

“This legislation, as it stands currently, would not have stopped the violent attacks in Newtown, Connecticut or Webster, New York,” said Assemblyman Christopher S. Friend, who voted against the legislation. “This bill will, however, punish law-abiding citizens who value their Second Amendment rights, while doing little to address the real problem.”

NY Rep. Israel targets 3-D printed gun magazines

By Arturo Garcia
Saturday, January 19, 2013 20:30 EST

Defense Distributed 3-D magazine video

A New York lawmaker will introduce a bill designed to ban people from making gun magazines with 3-D printers, following a demonstration of a working model by a Texas firearms group.

According to Long Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) will push to renew the Undetectable Firearms Act with an added stipulation banning the manufacturing, ownership, transport or purchase of 3-D printed firearms or high-capacity magazines.

Israel said he decided to not just renew, but expand the legislation after his staff discovered footage released by the group, Defense Distributed, of a man firing 86 rounds through a semi-automatic rifle using 30-round magazines created by 3-D printers.

In one video, released earlier this month, a man asks, “How’s that national conversation going?” before firing, a possible allusion to the 23 executive orders signed this month by President Barack Obama as part of his efforts to stem gun violence.

The company has also offered downloadable blueprints for the 30-round magazines. More than 2,200 blueprints have reportedly been downloaded since becoming available.

Israel acknowledged to Forbes magazine that enforcing the law would be difficult, but he insisted his legislation was not aimed at owners of 3-D printers.

“We’re not going to solve every problem,” he said in an interview published Thursday. “No law can do that. What we’re trying to do is deal with a very specific problem, which is the lone wolf who uses a 3D printer to make a plastic weapon in his home that can be brought onto a plane or into a secure environment.”
Full Article


City Offers Miami Heat Tickets In Exchange For Guns

Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
January 20, 2013

The Miami Police Department is asking residents to turn in their weapons in return for Miami Heat tickets and gift cards.

The gun buyback program is similar to those seen across the country. Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado hopes that his buyback will prevent gun violence in the area.

“What we’re doing here, we’re beating the odds,” Regalado said. “If one incident is avoided, it’s worth it.”

A buyback was held today at Jordan Grove Baptist Church where 50 weapons (mostly hunting rifles and small caliber handguns) were handed over in the first hour.

Read full article

Thousands of Armed Protestors Gather at State Capitols

The Daily Mail
January 20, 2013

Thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully Saturday at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter limits on firearms, with demonstrators carrying rifles and pistols in some places while those elsewhere settled for waving hand-scrawled signs or screaming themselves hoarse.

The size of crowds at each location varied – from dozens of people in South Dakota to 2,000 in New York. Large crowds also turned out in Connecticut, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington state.

Some demonstrators in Olympia, Wash., Phoenix, Salem, Ore., and Salt Lake City came with holstered handguns or rifles on their backs. At the Kentucky Capitol in Frankfort, attendees gave a special round of applause for ‘the ladies that are packin’.

Activists promoted the ‘Guns Across America’ rallies primarily through social media. They were being held just days after President Barack Obama unveiled a sweeping package of federal gun-control proposals.

The crowd swelled to more than 800 amid balmy temperatures on the steps of the pink-hued Capitol in Austin, where speakers took the microphone under a giant Texas flag with ‘Independent’ stamped across it.

Homemade placards read ‘An Armed Society is a Polite Society,’ ‘The Second Amendment Comes from God’ and ‘Hey King O., I’m keeping my guns and my religion.’

Read Entire Article

Why collectivism is doomed and the next great crisis will massively shift America toward conservatism

Saturday, January 19, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

people(NaturalNews) There is a very good reason why people who live in cities tend to be liberal while those who live in rural areas tend to be conservative. In a city, the existence of nearby neighbors, the shared dependence on infrastructure and the close proximity of police stations automatically lends itself to a socialist mindset. On issues like guns, city people seem to be unable to imagine why anyone would “need” a rifle, for example, and because all guns scare them, they would prefer to force everyone across the country to turn them all in.

People who live in rural areas, in great contrast, have every reason to be more conservative and independent. Their local sheriff might be 30 minutes away in an emergency, meaning that self protection is truly up to you and can’t simply be delegated to someone else. Self-reliance means survival. In rural living, firearms are absolutely necessary tools to protect your animals from predators, eliminate varmints that are destroying your garden, and provide real security for legitimate threats to your safety. People who live in cities tend not to be able to understand these things because they can’t imagine country life.

Because cities pack so many people in such a small space, there is a commonsense basis for lots of little laws and regulations on things like noise, littering and even your car’s emissions. After all, one incredibly noisy person living in an apartment can prevent a hundred people from getting to sleep, so noise ordinances make sense where people live in close proximity.

Out in the country, where the nearest house might be a quarter-mile away, noise ordinances make no sense. Regulations on every little detail of the lives of the people simply don’t fly.

FACT: Today, about 80% of the U.S. population lives in cities.

Paper pulls controversial handgun permit info from website

By Samantha Kimmey
Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:31 EST

["Female Policer Officer Aiming Her Service Weapon" on Shutterstock]

The newspaper that stirred up controversy after publishing the names and addresses of gun permit owners in two New York counties has taken down the information from its website, reported the Associated Press.

The move came just a few days after New York passed new gun control laws that also added privacy protections for those with gun permits, which were created in direct response to the Journal News’ map. Specifially, someone with a gun permit can take themselves off public records — which the newspaper used to create the original map — if he or she is a police officer, domestic violence survivor, or simply someone who feels threatened by having a public record.

Gun owners objected to the mapping of addresses, claiming that it threatened their safety. The angry response led the newspaper to bring in armed guards.

While the map itself remains, people can no longer use it to find specific addresses and names.

A statement from the paper’s president explained the decision: “While the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe that doing so complies with its spirit.”

Matrix programming 101: destroy logic

Saturday, January 19, 2013 by: Jon Rappoport

men(NaturalNews) Once upon a time, in medieval universities, new students enrolled in the Trivium. It was the foundation curriculum. It was required. Its parts were: grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

Grammar: the interior construction of language; the parts of speech; the proper agreement of parts of speech.

Logic: the valid and invalid connections in the course of an argument; the method of proper reasoning; the deductive links in a chain, at the end of which is a conclusion.

Rhetoric: oral presentation; the use of language to make a case; the capacity to persuade, even in the face of counter-argument.

Today, the subject matter of the Trivium is not only downplayed. It has been shattered.

This article focuses on the death of logic.

When the intensive handling of ideas is seen as a laughable goal for education, indoctrination is plugged in as the only alternative.

The mind of the student shifts from being an active force to being a container.

The destruction of logic is a conscious strategy, a game plan. Its goal is to pervert rational thought at its core and insert ideology masked as insight.

The game plan was cooked up a long time ago at the Carnegie Foundation, where the undermining of American history was the number-one pastime.

Instead of merely erasing knowledge of American history, it was decided that the basic way ideas are studied should be torpedoed.

The actual meaning of an idea was firmly placed on the back burner. Front and center would be: relentlessly assess and attack the people who forwarded those ideas.

And sure enough, this strategy has gained great prominence.

Media Icons Piers Morgan, Anderson Cooper, and Megyn Kelly Should be Outed as Traitors to the American People

State sponsored terror and propaganda floods the masses as we are reaching a turning point in American history.

By Shepard Ambellas
January 19, 2013

Intelligence operatives or globalist cronies? One thing is for sure, contrived media propaganda is in full swing for 2013.

Recently, rouge factions of our government and media have seemingly been following a terrorist version of a “False Flag” play-by-play manual aimed at disarming the American populace once and for all.

In fact CNN has recently been implicated in airing bunk footage of another “active-shooter” drill as the “LIVE BREAKING” feed of the Sandy Hook School shooting on the morning of December 14, 2012 the day of the reported shooting. But why would the media be involved?

For years the government has been pecking away at our constitutional rights as American citizens, trying to limit and impose more stringent limitations regarding firearm use and ownership. But never before have we seen this type of rhetoric and blatant attacks on our constitutional rights by media “icons” and the media establishment itself then in recent months following the Aurora theatre shooting in Colorado.

The media has always been a big part of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as it not only gathers intelligence information but serves as a propaganda mouth piece for various intelligence operations worldwide.

It is also well known now and openly admitted that Anderson Cooper and other predominant members of the media are indeed affiliated with the CIA.

Anderson Cooper

Anderson Hays Cooper (born June 3, 1967) is an American journalist, author, and television personality. He is the primary anchor of the CNN news show Anderson Cooper 360°. The program is normally broadcast live from a New York City studio; however, Cooper often broadcasts live on location for breaking news stories. As of September 2011, he also serves as host of his own eponymous syndicated daytime talk show, Anderson Live, which will be cancelled at the end of the second season.[2]

…. During college, Cooper spent two summers as an intern at the Central Intelligence Agency. Although he technically has no formal journalistic education, he opted to pursue a career in journalism rather than stay with the agency after school,[13] having been a self-proclaimed “news junkie” since he was “in utero.”[14] After his first correspondence work in the early 1990s, he took a break from reporting and lived in Vietnam for a year, during which time he studied the Vietnamese language at the University of Hanoi.[15] — Wikipedia

Other media icons such a Piers Morgan have possible intelligence ties and at the least are accepting of their master bribes. Morgan has formerly been implicated in a British hacking scandal essentially showing some connection to an intelligence operation as talk show hosts and actors typically are not hackers.

The Huffington Post reported;

Piers Morgan was not treated too kindly by the just-released Leveson Report, which called his testimony about phone hacking “utterly unpersuasive.”

The CNN host and former British tabloid editor gave testimony to the inquiry into the ethics of the British press back in December. There, he was confronted with past statements he had made about phone hacking, both in his book and in interviews. Other witnesses also testified that he told them how to hack into phones.

While Morgan has freely admitted to knowing about the practice, he has vociferously denied allegations that he condoned it at the Mirror, and no concrete evidence has ever been found tying him to hacking. The newspaper has, however, been sued by people who claim their phones were hacked during his editorship.

Lord Justice Leveson, who chaired the inquiry, devoted a small chunk of hisvoluminous report to Morgan’s testimony. He concentrated on a 2007 interview Morgan gave in which he called phone hacking an “investigative practice that everyone knows was going on at almost every paper in Fleet Street for years.” Morgan said he was “passing on rumors.”

This is alarming as a British National comes out the day of the Sandy Hook School shooting demanding that all Americans firearms should be taken away. T

his globalist sponsored propaganda was later countered by radio talk show host and filmmaker Alex Jones in what some would call a controversial interview on Piers Morgans CNN show.

Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly

According to the Fox News official website, “Megyn Kelly currently anchors “America Live,” (1-3 p.m. ET), a daytime news program on Fox News Channel (FNC), which launched in February of 2010. She previously co-anchored “America’s Newsroom” with Bill Hemmer (9-11 a.m. ET) and appears weekly on “The O’Reilly Factor” in a segment entitled The Kelly File. Throughout her tenure with FNC, Kelly has covered breaking news and has reported live from numerous political events….

… During the 2007 Virginia Tech campus massacre, Kelly reported live from Blacksburg, Virginia. Additionally, she was in Huntington, Utah as rescue efforts were underway for six trapped miners.

Kelly notably covered the Duke University rape case involving three of the school’s lacrosse players. Reporting from Durham, North Carolina, she broke new details that would ultimately help exonerate the defendants.”

Recently Kelly made on-air remarks during a Fox News broadcast and referencing and essentially calling for the removal of constitutional rights (our freedom of speech) in response to the victims families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and their alleged feelings toward bloggers and internet news publications like which continue to point out facts and points that the mainstream media still fails to cover regarding what is being dubbed the most deadly school shooting in U.S. history.

Bill Maher: You Have No Rights Left to Protect with Your Guns

Activist Post

Bill Maher is clearly anti-gun, but he makes several worthwhile points in this video that break political boundaries. He points out how liberals have allowed Obama to strip just as many rights as Bush did, and how conservatives just bought guns while this was going on instead of doing something useful to protect their rights. Now, there are no rights left to defend, he opines.

A (Brief) People’s History of Gun Control

By Kevin Carson
January 19, 2013

From its very beginning, gun control — the attempt to regulate the possession of means of self-defense by the ordinary populace — has been closely associated with class rule and the class state.

In early modern England, regulation of firearm ownership was closely intertwined with the struggle by the landed classes and capitalist agriculture to restrict the laboring classes’ access to independent subsistence from the land. This included enclosure of common woodland, fen and waste — in which landless and land-poor peasants had previously hunted small game — for sheep pasturage or arable land. It also included exclusion of the common people from forests via the Game Laws and restriction of hunting to the gentry.

Under the slaveocracy of the American south, firearm ownership was prohibited by Black Codes that regulated free blacks. And after Emancipation, whenever the old landed gentry managed to successfully assert its power against the Reconstruction regime, former slaves were disarmed by house-to-house patrols, either under the Black Codes or by such irregular bodies as the Klan.

The same was true of the Civil Rights struggle a century later, after World War II. In areas where armed self-defense efforts by civil rights activists were widespread, they significantly improved the balance of power against the Klan and other racist vigilante movements. Numerous armed self-defense groups — e.g. the Deacons for Defense and Justice, whose members used rifles and shotguns to repel attacks by white vigilantes in Louisiana in the 1960s — helped equalize the correlation of forces between civil rights activists and racists in many small towns throughout the south.

Especially notable was Robert Williams, who in 1957 organized an armed defense of the Monroe, NC NAACP chapter president’s home against a Klan raid and sent the vigilantes fleeing for their lives. Williams’s book Negroes With Guns later inspired Huey Newton, a founder of the Black Panthers Party.

Speaking of the Black Panthers, no discussion of the origins of modern American gun control would be complete without recognizing their role in inspiring the modern right-wing gun control agenda.

Foreshadowing current groups like Copwatch and Cop Block, the Panthers in 1966 organized armed patrols of Oakland streets with rifles and shotguns, stopping to witness police interactions with local residents and provide information and offers of legal assistance when necessary.

In 1967 Republican state assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland, a vocal enemy of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the Black Panthers, responded with a bill to prohibit publicly carrying firearms in California. The BPP’s Bobby Seale protested the bill by leading a Panther detachment, armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols, up the steps of the statehouse (“All right, brothers, we’re going inside”), through its doors, and into the public viewing area. There Seale read a statement denouncing Mulford’s bill as an attempt “at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless at the very same time that racist police agencies throughout the country are intensifying the terror and repression of black people,” and warning that “the time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.”

Mulford’s gun control bill was signed into law three months later by Governor Ronald Reagan.

Full Article

Texas Bank Welcomes Concealed Handguns
January 18, 2013

With a population of just 350 people, what Chappell Hill lacks in size — it more than makes up for in flair.

“You never know who’s sitting in this bank,” said Ed Smith, president of the Chappell Hill Bank. “If you’re coming in to rob it, I think you’re going to be in a world of hurt.”

That’s because the person standing next to you could be packing heat. You see, the Chappell Hill Bank is the first in the nation that actually welcomes legally concealed handguns.

Read more

William Bratton: The Real Cures for Gun Violence

William Bratton, the once (and possibly future) New York police commissioner, on the president’s gun-control plans and the need for ‘certainty of punishment.’


New York

The last time America had a gun-control debate was the early 1990s, and it was followed by the great two-decade-long decline in American crime. The irony is that gun control had very little to do with that decline.

William Bratton did. Serving as New York City’s top cop for 27 months from 1994 to 1996, he helped turn around a violent, crime-ridden city with policies that later were adopted nationwide and across the globe. The 65-year-old now runs a consulting business and a tech firm that focus on law enforcement, and in a recent chat he puts the gun debate in the context of policies that really have made America safer.

As announced Wednesday, President Obama wants more federal and state information-sharing, more data collection and better training for local law enforcement. But the heart of his proposals, and the most controversial, are his requests that Congress reinstate the ban on “assault weapons” that lapsed in 2004, outlaw ammunition clips holding 10 or more rounds, and extend mandatory background checks to almost all gun sales.

Mr. Bratton likes what he calls the “symbolism” of this agenda, but he’s unsure if its enactment would make a substantive difference. “Its importance is that it is a motivator to keep people aware, concerned and involved,” he says as we sit amid the police helmets, miniature squad cars and framed magazine covers of his midtown Manhattan corner office. “The good news is at least the issue is once again being discussed and being discussed seriously. As to what the ultimate outcome will be, it’s anyone’s guess.”

Full Article

Citizens Against Senseless Violence: “Join Us! Tell Everyone Your House Is Completely Unprotected!”

Mac Slavo
Jan 18, 2013

This is one you don’t want to miss.

Citizens Against Senseless Violence goes door-to-door and asks supporters of gun control legislation to join the movement by putting signs in front of their homes letting everyone know that they proudly live in a gun free zone.

The group visits a host of key anti-gun proponents including the publishing team at theJournal News, which recently posted a public map of homeowners with registered weapons. They also visit the home of our very own Attorney General Eric Holder who has said we need to “brainwash” people about gun ownership, yet ironically, was the lead law enforcement officer in charge of an operation that transferred (without a background check or registration, no less!) military style assault rifles with high capacity magazines to the Los Zetas Mexican drug cartel.

All have called on President Obama and Congress to disarm Americans.

While they’ve been quite vocal about ensuring that Americans give up their guns through reeducation, intimidation and policy, as you’ll see, they are not exactly receptive to the idea of letting everyone else in their neighborhood know how proud they are to be gun-free.

Since these reporters and editors did not consider it a violation of the privacy and safety of others to reveal which homes have guns and which homes don’t, we went to see which of them would be willing to put up a sign publicly declaring their homes to be gun free zones.

While we didn’t find any members of the media with the strength of their convictions, we did find quite a few guns and some good explanations for why they might be necessary.

Video by Project Veritas via Activist Post

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Man who doesn’t ‘believe’ in guns rescued from armed robbery by two good Samaritans with guns

J. D. Heyes
Natural News
Jan 18, 2013

He doesn’t own a firearm and says he “doesn’t believe” in guns at all. But now he’s grateful a couple of other locals did not share his values.

According to Houston-area station KHOU-11, the man had just been victimized at gunpoint by a robber when a pair of good Samaritans came to his rescue recently.

Police say the criminal suspect, identified as Christopher Hutchins, who was canvassing a neighborhood near the 2500 block of Wichita St. near Hermann Park, had no clue what he got himself into when picking his target.

‘I don’t believe in guns, but…’

In this case, the station reported, the victim, Kevin Dorsey, had just walked back to his car from a bar around the corner and had not yet closed his car door one evening when a man alleged to be Hutchins who was wearing all black and a ski mask pulled a gun and put it to his chest. The suspect took Dorsey’s wallet, cell phone and car keys.

Following the robbery, Dorsey started running down the street, at which point he said two men in a Mercedes stopped and asked him what had happened. When he told them, the men in the car took off in pursuit of the suspect. When they caught up to him, they opened fire on him, Dorsey said.

The suspect fired back but in the end, the station reported, the two Samaritans won the gun battle and took him down.

Full Article

The Big List of Who Hates Guns