Category Archives: US Constitution

DHS ammunition and weapons stockpiling challenged by Rep. Timothy Huelscamp, Department of Homeland Security stonewalling, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, thousands of armored vehicles

DHS ammunition and weapons stockpiling challenged by Rep. Timothy Huelscamp, Department of Homeland Security stonewalling, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, thousands of armored vehicles

“One more thing: Why is the federal government buying so much hollow point ammunition, purchasing light armored vehicles, spying with drones and claiming the right to kill Americans with drones, and trying to pass legislation to disarm citizens? Does any of this make sense? How about two words: National Socialism.”…Dean M., Citizen Wells commenter

“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. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”…Adolf Hitlerdinner talk April 11, 1942

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

 

From WND March 21, 2013.

“Obama admin stonewalling on big ammo buildup”

“Members of Congress are demanding the Obama administration explain why it is stockpiling a huge arsenal of ammunition and weapons.

The Department of Homeland Security bought more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year, as well as thousands of armored vehicles.

Rep. Timothy Huelscamp, R-Kan., wants to know what DHS plans to do with all that firepower, but he can’t get an answer.

A reporter for We Are Change asked Huelscamp at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week why DHS needs weapons of war.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Huelscamp said.

“I’ve got a list of questions of various agencies about multiple things. Far from being the most transparent administration in the world, they are the most closed-nature, opaque and they refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t have an answer for that. And multiple members of Congress are asking those questions,” he added.

Huelscamp said he plans to apply pressure to get an answer: “It comes down to during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’s feet to the fire? We’re going to find out. I say we don’t fund them ’til we get an answer.”

Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., also wants answers, and WND has reported that he is demanding an explanation of DHS’s bullet buys from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

“I think Congress should ask the department about both of those issues, and I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done, and I have every confidence that the oversight committee … should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”

As WND reported, the Department of Homeland Security has argued that it is buying in bulk to save money, explaining it uses as many as 15 million rounds a year for training law enforcement agents.

But the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would be enough for more than 100 years of training, or, more ominously, enough to fight a war for more than 20 years. It would also be enough to shoot every American more than five times.

Forbes columnist Benko, who worked for two years in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division, doubts the government’s explanation.
“To claim that it’s to ‘get a low price’ for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant,” he writes.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she believes the federal government is building an arsenal to prepare for the day the country goes bankrupt. Last month, she wrote on her Facebook page: “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

The prospect of civil unrest puts a chilling spin on an ominous remark then-candidate Barack Obama made in a Colorado campaign speech in July 2008.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” said then-candidate Obama.

Even the far-left is worried by the feds’ growing power.”

Read more:

Obama admin stonewalling on big ammo buildup

Sean Hannity Ted Cruz interview, Presidential hopefuls, Hannity questions Cruz Canadian birth, Carl Cameron Cruz not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Sean Hannity Ted Cruz interview, Presidential hopefuls, Hannity questions Cruz Canadian birth, Carl Cameron Cruz not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“There is zero authentic evidence that Obama was US born and strong circumstantial evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.”…Citizen Wells

“But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible.”…Carl Cameron Fox News

Sean Hannity on Fox News recently interviewed Texas Senator Tom Cruz about a possible presidential run in 2016. Hannity brings up the fact that Cruz was born in Canada and may not be eligible.

Carl Cameron on Fox News recently  commented about presidential hopefuls and in regard to Ted Cruz made the following statrement:

“But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible.”

Thank you Carl Cameron. Now if we can only get you to challenge Obama’s eligibility.

Sean Hannity, et al. There are multiple sources that explain why Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible for the presidency. The US Constitution with it’s grandfather clause is one. However, we have a recent ruling from the FEC that makes it crystal clear that Cruz is ineligible.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf) and the text of the Order may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf).”

“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/abdul-karim-hassan-vs-fec-ruling-october-1-2012-presidential-election-campaign-fund-act-natural-born-citizen-requirement-not-repealed-by-5th-14th-amendments/

Also, remember, John McCain was a citizen with 2 US citizen parents, but he was challenged because of his birth location.

Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008, which Barack Obama signed, states:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

Sean Hannity, perhaps you can be a little more forceful and accurate when interviewing presidential hopefuls.

Thanks to commenter GORDO.

Natural born citizen controversy over, Constitution FEC ruling Senate Resolution 511 and founding fathers provide answer, Politico The Blaze Media and politicians clueless

Natural born citizen controversy over, Constitution FEC ruling Senate Resolution 511 and founding fathers provide answer, Politico The Blaze Media and politicians clueless

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“You can’t fix stupid.”…Ron White

I have reported several Obama controversies from early in 2008. The Larry Sinclair Obama sex and drug encounter, Obama’s ties to Rezko and corruption in Chicago and Illinois and Obama’s eligibility deficiencies and efforts to hide his records.

I do not often report on the eligibility issue but I have kept the Hassan vs FEC rulings in the forefront for a reason. The FEC has helped to clear up some of the confusion regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen. This also explains why Obama refused matching funds from the FEC in 2008. He was not eligible for matching funds or the presidency.

The Obots, imbeciles in the biased mainstream media and politicians were either confused, ignorant and/or biased in 2008 when Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen was questioned. Many of them used the terms citizen, naturalized citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably. If Obama had requested matching funds from the FEC, as he had promised to do, his eligibility would have been challenged, as was Abdul Hassan’s.

There is no more controversy.

The US Constitution is a good starting point. It states:

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”

This confirms that citizen is not equivalent to natural born citizen.

The FEC ruling against Abdul Hassan on September 2, 2011 states:

“No, as a naturalized American citizen, Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (“Matching Payment Act”).

The United States Constitution provides that “[n]o Person except a natural born
Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.”

Click to access AO%202011-15.pdf

Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008, which Barack Obama signed, states:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 193”

McCain had 2 US citizen parents. Lawyers and legislators must be specific in what they include and omit.

The founding fathers, some of whom were trained in the law, had a clear understanding of what a natural born citizen is and that is why they had to be grandfathered in.

Case closed!

We have come to expect biased reporting from Politico and of course The Blaze, owned by Glenn Beck, who is clueless regarding Obama’s eligibility, predictably mis reporting on the Natural Born Citizen clause.

From The Blaze January 8, 2013.

“POLITICO WONDERS: IS TX SEN. TED CRUZ A ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’ ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENCY?”

“Only one week into his tenure as a Texas senator, Ted Cruz, 42, is already drawing presidential murmurs. While it’s certainly too early to tell what sort of leader Cruz will be, in practical terms, Politico raised a larger issue on Monday evening. Based on the fact that the politician was born to an American mother and a Cuban father in Canada, the outlet wondered if he is eligible to run for the American presidency.

The question at the center of the discussion is hypothetical at this juncture, as there’s no indication that the new senator is interested in the role. According to some, the fact that he was born outside of the U.S. could cause constitutional complications and uncertainties that would potentially cloud a candidacy. However, there is no precedent to examine that answers the viability question definitively. Politico explains:

While there’s no legal precedent for Cruz’s situation, most constitutional scholars surveyed by POLITICO believe the 42-year-old tea party sensation would be OK. But there’s just enough gray area to stoke controversy, as Cruz learned during his campaign for Senate last year.”

“Despite this analysis, it’s important to remember that Cruz is a newly-minted congressman. There’s no indication that he’s interested or seeking the presidency and such prospects, even if he does show an inclination, are years away. Still, on a grander scale, the discussion about natural born citizenship is pertinent — and one that seems continually unresolved.”

Read more:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/08/politico-wonders-is-tx-sen-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen-eligible-to-run-for-the-u-s-presidency/

Huh???

What is going on at American Thinker? Too much Orwellian brainwashing?

Thanks to Obama Release Your Records for calling them out.

“Last Word: American Thinker Pushes Leftist Myth 14th Amendment Citizen Is Natural Born Citizen”

“Note to American Thinker’s Ken Blackwell, Bob Morrison, and J.R. Dunn.
If you don’t like Article II of the Constitution then seek to have it
amended. Crapping all over it and misleading your readers is
disgusting and shameful. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are
citizens of the United States but they are not “natural born Citizens”
of the United States. See here and here.

Either you three are the stupidest fools on the planet or you are
purposely misleading the readers of American Thinker. And judging by
the lashings you’re receiving in the comment threads they clearly are
not stupid. Again, if you don’t like the Article II requirement then
have it amended. Articles in question declaring several potential, and
ineligible, presidential candidates eligible, here and here.

You say:
“Consider this historical question: Could it have been the original
intent of the Founders to disqualify themselves from serving as
president? It was not until Martin Van Buren, eighth president, that
we elected a man who had been born an American citizen.”

I was going to point out the Grandfather Clause to you but your reader
Countryman did it for me:”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-thinker-pushes-leftist-myth.html

Abdul Karim Hassan vs Federal Election Commission, March 11, 2013, U S Court of Appeals Per Curiam Order, Hassan not Natural Born Citizen

Abdul Karim Hassan vs Federal Election Commission, March 11, 2013, U S Court of Appeals Per Curiam Order, Hassan not Natural Born Citizen

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of
Presidential eligibility remains valid.”…Hassan vs FEC

“Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”…Hassan vs FEC

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From the FEC March 11, 2013.

APPEALS COURT ISSUES PER CURIAM ORDER IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today issued its Per Curiam Order inHassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Order may be found here: (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_ac_order2.pdf).

Background.

From Citizen Wells October 1, 2012.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf) and the text of the Order may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf).

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121001_Hassan_v._FEC.shtml

Exerpts:
“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of
Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

“Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/abdul-karim-hassan-vs-fec-ruling-october-1-2012-presidential-election-campaign-fund-act-natural-born-citizen-requirement-not-repealed-by-5th-14th-amendments/

 

 

 

Obama Nazi drone program, Citizen Wells invites ideas to neutralize drones, Neutralize Aerial Zoom Intimidation or NAZI, Share ideas to neutralize drones

Obama Nazi drone program, Citizen Wells invites ideas to neutralize drones, Neutralize Aerial Zoom Intimidation or NAZI, Share ideas to neutralize drones

“One more thing: Why is the federal government buying so much hollow point ammunition, purchasing light armored vehicles, spying with drones and claiming the right to kill Americans with drones, and trying to pass legislation to disarm citizens? Does any of this make sense? How about two words: National Socialism.”…Dean M., Citizen Wells commenter

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

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

With all of the controversy, warnings from people Like Rand Paul and the increasing spectre of drones being used to kill US citizens on US soil, my friends, associates and I have been brain storming about ways to neutralize these threats. After all, we have a right and a duty to protect ourselves.

I have a new name for this initiative:

Neutralize
Aerial
Zoom
Intimidation

or NAZI for short.

Just this morning, one of the great commenters at Citizen Wells provided some advice on how to implement a classic response to attack.

From oldsailor80

“If you are fortunate enough to live through an attack from a drone you are legally justified in most states to fire upon anyone,or anything that is attacking you with a lethal weapon. If the attack is from a drone then you will probably need a .50 cal.M-82 Barrets rifle. Then hopefully you will be proficient at shooting at moving targets. While I am not aware of the airspeed of drones,I would still advise to lead the target in the direction it is flying by approx 1 length of it’s fueslage. If it is flying at a higher airspeed you will need greater lead.”

I and some of my associates have come up with some more advanced solutions which will obviously not be shared at this time.

I am certain that the creative juices have been flowing elsewhere.

Please feel free to share your ideas.

Attorney General Eric Holder states no, Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil to be killed by a drone?, No imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm

Attorney General Eric Holder states no, Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil to be killed by a drone?, No imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm

“In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”…Obama DOJ Memo

“I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”…Barack Obama

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”…George Washington 

From Mediaite March 6, 2013.

“Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional”

“On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sent shockwaves through the nation when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in writing that the White House would be within its legal authority to execute an American citizen via drone on U.S. soil if that person was determined to pose a threat to national security. On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate panel, Holder was prodded repeatedly about this assertion by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Holder eventually admitted that it would not be constitutional to execute an American citizen without due process.

“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.”

““You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.”

Watch video:

Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional

Media Politicians and uninformed citizens bigger threat than guns, NY state legislation would hurt poor struggling families, Orwellian rules on competency to own firearms

Media Politicians and uninformed citizens bigger threat than guns, NY state legislation would hurt poor struggling families, Orwellian rules on competency to own firearms

“Liberals, lacking accountability for their failed policies, and reason for their irrational fear of guns, blame guns and conservatives for gun violence.”…Citizen Wells

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

“‘On the contrary,’ he said, ‘you have not controlled it. That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'”…George Orwell, “1984″

From the great commenter at Citizen Wells, writer, patriot and friend, zachjonesishome , February 25, 2013.

“The Media, Politicians and Uninformed Citizens are a Bigger Threat than Guns”

“The hyperbole, the high and mighty discussions, the knee-jerk legislative reactions surrounding the gun debate (assault on the Second Amendment) these past few months have been absolutely crazy, shortsighted, misinformed, misdirected, unconscionable and potentially dangerous. There are moves in the works to require every gun owner in New York state to carry 1 million dollars worth of liability insurance estimated to cost between $1,600 to $2,000 annually, which would mainly prevent the poor and struggling families from having access to guns for self-defense.  InWashington State a legislator was trying to require certain gun owners to allow the sheriff to inspect their homes once a year.  A lot of veterans, hundreds perhaps thousands, are receiving letters that they cannot own or process firearms, deemed incompetent without due process Even though the above attempts have strong arguments against them on Constitutional grounds (2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 14th), that does not make them in any way palatable.

The fact that veterans’ are having their rights taken away without due process raises another concern.  Who will say, and what standards will be used to say, a person is competent enough to own a firearm or not?  What about a person with a chronic back issue who was referred to a counselor because he or she felt a little blue and might benefit from talking with someone about dealing their new limitations?

Would Obama say this or that person is unfit to own a firearm?  (It might depend on his or her political Party registration with Obama.) 

No matter what the media and politicians around the nation are saying and trying to do, the real issue is not the Constitutional right of competent people in the United States to own firearms.  The Second Amendment my friend is a good thing, a necessary thing for everyone’s protection.

In our American tapestry, guns in the hands of competent law abiding citizens are a big net positive. They provide an effective deterrent to many types of crime (random assault, home invasion, burglary, rape, etc.).  Doesn’t it make sense that a violent predator or burglar would be much more likely to target those people (older, smaller, weaker, or disabled) who they have reason to believe are unarmed, or to target homes believed less likely to be protected by people with firearms?  Thus, having a significant portion of our responsible population armed also protects those who are not armed raising uncertainty in the mind of criminals.

Case in point, most of the recent mass killings in the news took place in venues that were expected not be adequately protected. In fact, most occurred in gun free zones, which is like putting up a sign that says ‘Look, Easy Pickings’.  (Just to note, the vast majority of violent crimes do not involve the actions of strangers. They are committed by someone know to the victim – friends, family, acquaintances.) However, the focus of this article is not primarily about guns.

It’s about politicians and media taking advantage of every crisis, real or manufactured, to further their agendas and misinform the vast majority of those who are too busy to pay close attention.  Regarding the gun issue (like they do nearly every other issue), the U.S. media consistently fails to cover the issue fairly and honestly; and most times they fail to present all the relevant facts.  When they report statistics about gun violence, they nearly always fail to even attempt to report on a number that I’m sure would dwarf the number of people killed or injured by disturbed and violent people using firearms for nefarious purposes.  This number is the number of deaths, injuries, robberies, rapes, assaults, or burglaries that did NOT occur; or where damages and injuries were reduced; or criminal activities were forced to end early because the criminal(s) were thwarted, because there was an armed victim, an armed guard, an armed civilian intervener, or common knowledge that many people in this state or neighborhood might be armed, or something as innocuous as an NRA bumper sticker on a car.

They fail to report on nations like Switzerland that requires all men 20 to 42 to own automatic rifles (their lack of gun crime) or asurvey of 9 countries gun laws and gun crime in Foreign Policy magazine that “…did not find any correlation between firearm control and ownership on the one hand and violent crime on the other….”

Sorry to use this well worn cliché, but it is very true.  When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  Have you read the stories about it now being possible to print guns, gun magazines and gun parts with 3D printers?  These guns could be made in a way with a 3D printer as to be nearly undetectable. Now that’s a scary thought.”

Read more:

The Media, Politicians and Uninformed Citizens are a Bigger Threat than Guns

Berreta gun manufacturer leaving Maryland?, 500 year old gun maker weighing MD General Assembly actions, Berettas don’t bluff, James Bond gun, New machine gun in works

Berreta gun manufacturer leaving Maryland?, 500 year old gun maker weighing MD General Assembly actions, Berettas don’t bluff, James Bond gun, New machine gun in works

“Liberals, lacking accountability for their failed policies, and reason for their irrational fear of guns, blame guns and conservatives for gun violence.”…Citizen Wells

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

“Berettas don’t bluff.”…Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta

 

From the Washington Post February 23, 2013.

“Beretta’s future in Maryland tied to state’s gun-control debate”

“On the production floor of Beretta USA sits a hulking new barrel-making machine ready to churn out the next object of obsession in America’s love-hate relationship with guns: a civilian version of a machine gun designed for special operations forces and popularized in the video game Call of Duty.

Beretta, the nearly 500-year-old family-owned company that made one of James Bond’s firearms, has already invested more than $1 million in the machine and has planned to expand its plant further in Prince George’s County to ramp up production.

But under an assault-weapons ban that advanced late last week in the Maryland General Assembly, experts say the gun would be illegal in the state where it is produced.

Now Beretta is weighing whether the rifle line, and perhaps the company itself, should stay in a place increasingly hostile toward its products. Its iconic 9mm pistol — carried by every U.S. soldier and scores of police departments — would also be banned with its high capacity, 13-bullet magazine.

“Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?” said Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta.”

“In testimony this month in Annapolis, Reh, who oversees the plant, warned lawmakers to consider carefully the company’s future. Reh pointed to the last time Maryland ratcheted up gun restrictions in the 1990s: Beretta responded by moving its warehouse operation to Virginia.

“I think they thought we were bluffing” in the 1990s, Reh said. “But Berettas don’t bluff.””

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/berettas-future-in-maryland-tied-to-states-gun-control-debate/2013/02/23/bcc56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html

Gun Companies Boycott Anti Gun States over 700% in 1 Week, Firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, Second Amendment protects citizens

Gun Companies Boycott Anti Gun States over 700% in 1 Week, Firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, Second Amendment protects citizens

“Liberals, lacking accountability for their failed policies, and reason for their irrational fear of guns, blame guns and conservatives for gun violence.”…Citizen Wells

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

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

 

From Freedom Outpost February 23, 2013.

“Gun Companies Boycotting Law Enforcement In Anti-Gun States Grow By More Than 700% In 1 Week”

“The list of companies that have decided to stop selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, in states that are hostile to the Second Amendment and putting forth gun control legislation, is growing and has grown more than seven times the number that I informed you about one week ago today.

Previously I listed the following companies:

Now the list has expanded to include:

Jeffrey Norton, of Norton Firearms, issued a statement on the company’s website:

Norton Firearms, Inc. is a strong defender of the US Constitution, not only the 2nd amendment. We believe that a government that restricts it Citizens from executing their Constitutional Rights is no longer a government for the people or by the people. It is our policy not to sell our products or services to any organization that tries to diminish the rights given to us by our US Constitution and our Creator. If you are a government agency with a policy of restricting our Constitutional Rights we ask that you take our tax dollars and spend it somewhere else. I am sure there is some profiteering communist foreign company that will be glad to take our dollars for their gain. We will only sell to law abiding, Citizens and those agencies that truly support and will defend The US Constitution.”

Read more:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/gun-companies-boycotting-law-enforcement-in-anti-gun-states-grow-by-more-than-700-in-1-week/#ixzz2LovHPlU1

Colorado Democrat legislators gun statements, Dumb and dumber, Ballpoint pens against shooter, Call boxes and safe zones protect against rape at colleges

Colorado Democrat legislators gun statements, Dumb and dumber, Ballpoint pens against shooter, Call boxes and safe zones protect against rape at colleges

“Weaker people, whether at school, at home or elsewhere are best protected from stronger people, with ill intent, by guns and proper security measures.”…Citizen Wells

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

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

 

Colorado legislators.

Dumb and dumber reality stars.

From Michelle Morin February 19, 2013.

“CO Democrat Lawmaker – Protect Yourself From a Shooter with Ballpoint Pens”

“While justifying the coming obliteration of your Second Amendment right, Colorado State Senator Jesse Ulibarri (D) shared an empowering, proven idea on how you can defend yourself from a shooter, and you don’t even need a gun to do it. Instead, use a ballpoint pen.

Yes, he really said it:

“When Congressman Giffords was shot … people who were unarmed took that person down when he stopped to reload. And so there are other ways to address violence …. very valiant folks stood up to defend themselves and protect themselves, and they did it with ballpoint pens.” ~ Colorado State Senator Jesse Ulibarri (D)””

http://www.mom4freedom.com/tag/colorado-legislature/

From Breitbart February 19, 2013.

“A Colorado legislator stated Monday that women in college should not carry guns to protect themselves from sexual assault, because they may prematurely shoot harmless men they “feel” are dangerous.

During a debate on gun control in the Colorado legislature, a bill HB13-1226, was presented to eliminate legal concealed carry on college campuses by permit holders. Rep. Joe Salazar (D-Thornton) decided that women should be denied the right to carry their legal guns because even if they felt they were going to be raped, they had call boxes and safe zones to protect them. Salazar asserted:

There are some gender inequities on college campuses. This is true. And universities have been faced with that situation for a long time. It’s why we have call boxes, that’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have the whistles because you just don’t know who you’re going to be shootin’ at.  And you don’t know if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop around at somebody.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/19/Colorado-Legislator-Going-To-Be-Raped-Use-A-Call-Box-Not-A-Gun

“You can’t fix stupid.”…Ron White