Coming Soon: Biometric Gun Control

So the government has been working on taking our guns for quite some time. It doesn't surprise me but once again shows how they can't seem to open their mouths without lying. I wonder if they truly believe they can totally take over the country without a shot fired?

Early this month, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested that the Department of Justice is considering gun control reforms that would require firearms to be equipped with technology to identify authorized users via biometric technology such as fingerprint recognition. This week, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he’s concerned that the DOJ is doing the legwork ahead of an executive order mandating the technology.

“I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and talked about how guns can be made more safe by making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon,” Holder said during his testimony.

In a letter to Holder this week, Cornyn said he wants more information about the Justice
Department’s reason for looking into the technology.

“Your testimony has raised serious concerns for my constituents given President Obama’s track-record of acting beyond the scope of his legal authority and your hostility to the individual right to self-defense under the Second Amendment,” Cornyn wrote.

The Senator has asked Holder to answer five questions:

1. Is the Obama administration currently exploring the possibility of an executive order requiring all firearms to possess the technology capabilities you referenced in your testimony?

2. Does the Executive Branch possess the statutory authority to take any executive action or agency action requiring firearms to possess the technological capabilities you referenced in your testimony? If so, under what provision of law does such authority exist?

3. Would the technological capabilities you referenced in your testimony require, or allow for, the monitoring of American citizens’ personally identifying information through a central database or registry?

4. How much, on a per firearm basis, would the technological capabilities you referenced in your testimony cost? Would it be appropriate to require law-abiding Americans to bear the cost of such technologies as a condition of exercising their fundamental constitutional rights under the Second Amendment?

5. Will you assure my constituents and me that, under your supervision, the Department of Justice will not issue regulations requiring law-abiding citizens to equip their firearms with fingerprint-reading technology, or to link them to biometric bracelets?

Cornyn’s questioning puts the Justice Department on the spot, publicizing what was potentially an effort by the Barack Obama Administration to quietly implement onerous gun regulations via the President’s pen. 

DOJ spokesman Brian Fallon told Roll Call that the department would review the Senator’s letter. 

“For over a year, the administration has been working with firearm manufacturers to promote technologies developed by the private sector that could improve firearm safety,” Fallon added. “Any suggestion that the Attorney General called for physically tracking law-abiding gun owners is a dishonest distortion.”

Senate Web Site Grossly Mis-states 2nd Amendment

SENATE

Senate website gets 2nd Amendment wrong, critics say

By Maxim Lott

Published September 25, 2013

FoxNews.com

Facebook330 Twitter190 LinkedIn5

Shown, at right, is a screen shot of the Senate web entry on the 2nd Amendment. The controversial passage is highlighted.REUTERS/SENATE.GOV

Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own guns?

The Supreme Court has ruled that it does. But you might be confused if you visit the official Senate web page on the Constitution, which says only: "Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated."

That particular wording was posted on the Senate website in 2009, based on archived web pages at The Internet Archive. However, that's one year after the Supreme Court ruled: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense." 

Given the court ruling, critics say the Senate site's administrators are just wrong.

"After five-and-a-half years of litigation, the Supreme Court unequivocally resolved the long-standing debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment," Bob Levy, one of the lawyers who won the 2008 Supreme Court case, told FoxNews.com.

"No one on either side of the gun debate -- with the possible exception of those persons who devised the U.S. Senate's official website explaining the Constitution -- doubts that the Supreme Court has affirmed the individual rights view of the Second Amendment," he added.

The issue follows on the heels of a similar Second Amendment controversy, in which a Texas history textbook was found to claim that the Second Amendment means "the people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

But while the textbook was published before the Supreme Court clarified the issue in 2008 -- and the authors say they will revise the book -- the Senate definition was put up after the ruling.

The Senate website content is determined by the "Secretary of the Senate", a post headed by former Tom Daschle staffer Nancy Erickson. FoxNews.com reached her Deputy Chief of Staff, Mark Tratos, by phone on Tuesday and asked if the secretary stood by the wording. Tratos said he would check, but did not get back with an answer as of Wednesday afternoon.

Pro-gun control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns declined to comment on the issue.

Meanwhile, gun rights advocates panned the site's language.

"Considering that this year the party in control of the United States Senate tried to ban many semi-automatic firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, it does not surprise me that their website takes that position," Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said.

"Congress has shown time and time again that they ignore the two Supreme Court decisions that make it very clear that the Second Amendment is in fact an individual right."

The author of this article can be reached at maxim.lott@foxnews.com or on Twitter at @maximlott.

Gun Control: A Lesson Yet To Be Learned

A Lesson to be Learned on the Anniversary of Wounded Knee

 

December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.
Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed; over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed “National Hero’s” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.
We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation” or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment- The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.
As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and continued by Barack Obama is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be taken away for “our safety”.
Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law; defective people will always find a way around it. 
And another thought Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power- governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do governments target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our families.

Subject: Gun Control

Subject: Gun Control

From families somewhere on the East Coast. "We are a Jewish family, and all our minor children attend a Jewish  elementary school. The school itself does its best to maintain a low profile,  but, due to its academic excellence, its appearance and location are well known in the area. We Jews, whether in Israel or here, are acutely aware of the continuing  threat to us and our children, no matter where we live. It is not paranoia, as I'm not talking about 'imagined' threats, am I? Because of our community's ability to accurately comprehend threats and  threat-levels, we have elected not to do what is currently common in this  civilization: (1) pretend threats don't exist, and (2) wager our lives on police arriving sometime before the last shot is fired. So, this is what we've all agreed upon and instituted: Each father, including me, is on a mandatory, rotating duty-schedule.  Each of us is thus 'on-duty' several days each month, all day. Yes, we have to take days off from work. We are posted in the back of each classroom, visibly armed with both an AR and a pistol. All our weapons are constantly loaded and ready, and can be plainly seen as such. Each child thus knows and understands that there is always a father, their own or that of one of one of their schoolmates, there with them in the classroom all the time, and he is able, willing, and committed to defending them with his life. We consider this system the only logical and effective solution to our  security challenges. Again, it is as low-profile as we can reasonably make it, and from the  outside, a casual observer can't see any of this, but all of us, children,  parents, teachers, and administrators know, and are thankful for, what we have  put in place.  And, as you might say, we don't care who likes it!" Comment: Americans are responding to the latest mass-murder incident, not  with cries for additional restrictions on our freedom, but by going out and  buying guns! ARs, XCRs, PTRs, SIG/556s, Kalashnikovs, M1As, et al, as well as magazines and ammunition, are currently being bought-up so quickly, dealers can't keep them in stock. Even requiem anti-gun editorials are currently muted, as Americans are in  no mood to be piously lectured, by media elitists and political gas-bags alike, that we are too stupid to own guns! The Jewish Community, at least in the case described above, is smart enough to perceive real problems and come up with real solutions, not just the same old tired, fictitious, worthless fluff suggested by most politicians. Good show, guys! John

What Kind Of Gun Control?

Guns: More, or less?
Meir Liberman

There is, of course, shock and horror upon hearing of the disgusting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that strikes every civilized person. For this, I commend Rachael Risby-Raz  and Rina Ne’eman for their wonderfully written pieces, bringing up the topic in a clear and heartfelt fashion. They are both absolutely right- and wrong at the same time.

This shooting seems to be part of a bad broken record that seems to play over and over. This past summer had seen a horrendous shooting in a movie theater in Colorado and before that there was the other shooting in Virgina Tech…The examiner has an article on the Worst Mass Shootings in American Schools. The list is sickening.

Like I said, it’s like a bad broken record.

And every year, along with this bad broken records of shootings, the question of gun control arises. Parents of victims of violence scream for less guns on the street. They are understandable for their animosity towards guns, but as much as I want to agree with them I cannot.

What we need isn’t less guns on the street.

No.

What we need is more guns in the hands of those that can – and will – use them responsibly.

There are many studies on the topic of gun-control. Among them is the 10 year study by John Lott showing how people who buy guns through the proper channels are not likely to be found using them for crimes.Within the areas where legal gun proliferation was high, crime rates across the board went down. Such data indicate that more gun control isn’t what we need. What is needed is for more people in the right places to have them.

Now, I’m not a gun lobbyist. I believe that there should be very strict rules about who may purchase a gun, especially if it’s is an automatic weapon.

However, I’m a pragmatist.

If we restrict the proliferation of guns among the civilian populace, what we will find is not a safer population but a population that can look to Norway for their example of what happens when one crazy man gets his hands on a weapon. What will happen is that the only people with guns will be criminals and the policemen who arrive well after the incident has begun.

But imagine if several teachers in Sandy Hook Elementary School had guns and the training to use them. Being on the scene of the crime, they could have brought down the gunman within seconds; compared to the minutes of the law enforcement. They would have been able to stop the gunman from reaching such a high death count.

I understand the shock of the thought of a teacher who is around children all day carrying a gun. What if one of the kids gets a hold of it? What if they pull it out of the holster for laughs? So I recommend teacher-specific training. Training on how to deal with all the possibilities that might happen around children.

What we will then see is not how the gun kills, but how it protects.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/more-guns-not-less/

Gun Grab?

More of this is coming through the tubes lately. Some say yes, some say no, but maybe it has legs.

OBAMA ADMIN. REVIVES U.N. GUN GRAB!

Within hours after Dear Leader's re-election, the Obama administration revived the United Nations' stagnant efforts to regulate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in America!

The Obama administration MOVED TO ADVANCE THE STALLED U.N. GUN TREATY TO THE FULL GENERAL ASSEMBLY, a scant one day after Obama's re-election to a second term!
Obama is falsely claiming that the newly revived U.N. Gun Grab applies only to firearms exports, not the Constitutional gun rights secured for Americans by our Founding Fathers.
HOWEVER –
According to the U.N. treaty's own wording, countries are "to take the necessary legislative and administrative measures to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty."
The Washington Times reports:

Though the treaty is supposed to be about 'gun exports,' its provisions can still be applied domestically. Activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation could see to that. The definition of international commerce could follow the same expansive logic liberal courts have used to redefine 'interstate commerce.' Anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control.

YOU CAN BE SURE that if signed by Obama and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N. Gun treaty WILL metastasize into a liberty and rights destroying international usurpation of OUR Bill of Rights, OUR rule of law, and OUR Constitution!

DEMAND THE RATIFICATION OF S. 2205, NOT A U.N. SELL-OUT!
HELP PROTECT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS FROM THE U.N. GUN GRAB!

This treaty also includes implementing provisions to force ratifying nations to support and enforce Agenda 21 "sustainable development" though it has NOTHING to do with exporting firearms!
We've obtained a copy of the treaty wording, and it's not about 'gun exports' like the Obama administration wants us to believe…
The U.N. Gun treaty reads:

It must require States [countries – like the United States] to assess the risk that serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law may be committed with the weapons being transferred.
Secondly, it must include within its scope all conventional weapons, including small arms…
The treaty must also include ammunition within its scope…
It must ensure that there are no loopholes by covering all types of transfers, including activities such as transit, trans-shipment, as well as loans and leases.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: The U.N. Gun treaty will systematically dismantle our Second Amendment, and once ratified there will be no going back.
As an international 'treaty,' the U.N. Gun Grab will have so-called "constitutional authority" to be applied not only to imported/exported weapons and ammunition BUT ALSO to those weapons and ammunition capable of being exported yet never even leave the country.
It will shred the Tenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution right along with the Second Amendment by placing the authority of the U.N. and of intrusive federal government over state regulatory powers!

DEMAND THE RATIFICATION OF S. 2205, NOT A U.N. SELL-OUT!
HELP PROTECT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS FROM THE U.N. GUN GRAB!

With the full backing of the anti-gun Obama administration (and no more re-election worries for Obama to consider), this treaty will be fast tracked and hard to stop with a timeline for ratification by the U.S. Senate as early as the summer of 2013 – if not sooner!
If this international gun-grab is not stopped, YOU AND I – law-abiding citizens – will be left to the mercy of the U.N. anti-gunners, international law, and radically Leftist Obama administration.
With the economy going over the fiscal cliff (indeed, gun stocks like Smith & Wesson are about the only consumer goods stocks doing well since Obama sealed his second term reign), we need to secure our Right to Arms and our gun ownership now more than ever.
That's why, right now, we need to actively join forces with true conservatives on Capitol Hill to demand NO COMPROMISE when it comes to our Second Amendment or our national sovereignty.
We CANNOT allow this Leftwing administration, its gun grabbing lobbyists and its globalist fellow-travelers to dismantle our Constitutional rights.
But to protect and defend our precious Second Amendment, U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) need your help! America's Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and to regulate our own vital domestic and international gun trade really are in grave peril!
Today, America needs YOU to blast-fax YOUR elected officials to pass the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, S. 2205.
If passed, S. 2205 will PROHIBIT this current anti-gun rights president – as well as all future presidents – from using "the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials."
OUR DANGER IS REAL! If we fail (meaning the U.N. Gun Grab is treasonously ratified by our U.S. Senate), the 'Treaty' would FORCE sovereign national governments (US!) to:

• Make it virtually impossible for law-abiding citizens to legally own a firearm by enacting tougher licensing requirements and bureaucracy;
• Confiscate and destroy all "unauthorized" firearms owned by non-government entities, or face the consequences as set forth by the U.N.;
• BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons, including hunting rifles, collectors' antiques and handguns for self-defense;
• Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

DEMAND THE RATIFICATION OF S. 2205, NOT A U.N. SELL-OUT!
HELP PROTECT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS FROM THE U.N. GUN GRAB!

The U.N., like the Obama administration, is hiding behind lies to see its international disarmament plot establish the New World Order.
They are falsely claiming that the purpose for this treaty is to stop illegal weapons trafficking and keep illegal military grade assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists – ILLEGAL GUN OWNERS – while the treaty IN FACT focuses on dismantling LEGAL gun sales and ownership in our own country and abroad. It does NOT target illicit terror markets AT ALL!
If we fail to act, U.N. member-states – including IRAN, RUSSIA, CHINA, PAKISTAN AND NEWLY RADICALIZED ISLAMIST EGYPT – WILL CONTROL AMERICA'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!
With the Obama administration clicking its heels in compliance, these corrupt, anti-American, anti-democracy nations will hand a newly disarmed WE THE PEOPLE over to tyranny!
American exceptionalism will be DEAD right along with our Right to Keep and Bear Arms and our FREEDOM! America as we know it will be no more UNLESS WE STOP THIS TREATY IN ITS TRACKS!
Together, we CAN stop the assault on our guns and our liberty by cutting off the funding for the gun ban's further U.N. negotiations and procedural advancement. We CAN stop the disarmament of WE THE PEOPLE and protect America's sovereignty by demanding the Senate's support for S. 2205.
America needs YOU to contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them TO STAND UP FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT!
We MUST demand our Senators ensure NO DEAL on this 'treaty' is ever reached, and NO RATIFICATION IS EVER ACCORDED!

TELL CONGRESS 'NO COMPROMISE' ON THE CONSTITUTION – SELECT HERE!

For America,
The Editors
American Sovereignty PAC – www.AmericanSovereigntyPAC.com

Turn In Guns Or Die

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

See it for yourself. Time to get serious, folks.

D-Day For Gun Control

D-Day For Gun Control
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on July 10, 2012

Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N. The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.

The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT's true intent: to force gun control on the United States.

Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.

The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will ensure that "parties [to the treaty] take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within [their] territories ... to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users."

The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take "all necessary measures." This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: "After the treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms."

Bolton explains that "the administration knows that it cannot obtain this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn't get otherwise."

The treaty makes no sense otherwise, except as a circuitous vehicle to achieve gun control in the United States. The vast majority of all small arms and light arms exports (the ostensible focus of the treaty) are from sales by the governments of the United States, Russia, China, Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the treaty's regulations.

Insofar as the treaty restricts governmental action, it bars governments from arming "illicit" groups in other nations. This provision could well be interpreted to ban U.S. arms sales to Iranian or Syrian dissidents. It could even be used by China to stop us from selling arms to Taiwan, since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a nation, but rather an entity occupying territory that should belong to China.

And let's not forget how well the United States has done in reducing murders and other crimes despite the absence of comprehensive gun controls and bans. In 1993, there were 24,350 homicides in the United States. Last year, there were 13,576 (despite a growth of 60 million in the population). Only 9,000 of these murders involved a firearm. (Less than one-third of the highway deaths each year in the country.)

Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it.

And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution, we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment. International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the United States.

If it is ratified during the lame-duck session of the Senate this year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye, Second Amendment.

Right now we need 34 courageous Republican senators to step up and demand that Hillary not sign the treaty, and indicate their intention to vote against its ratification if it is submitted. Only such an action can stop this treachery in its tracks.

UN Doomsday Treaty