New York attacks First Amendment

April 14, 2013

(Examiner)The Washington Examiner reports that a town in New York has forced the removal of the historic Gadsden Flag, which has been a symbol of American determination to fight for liberty ever since the American revolution.
Media_httpcdn2bexamin_cawuuAccording to Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit, a group of U.S. veterans is fighting the local city council in New Rochelle, N.Y. for the right to display the flag at the local armory. The Navy and the Marine Corps have been flying the flag since 1775. The Gadsden Flag has long been considered a patriotic symbol.
But the New Rochelle City Council says that the Gadsden Flag is a symbol of the Tea Party and has right wing connotations.
No one in the veteran’s group, however, is a member of the Tea Party.
Some of the members of the council itself appear to be carrying their own unjustified bias concerning the flag. One council member likened the Gadsden flag to a flag used by homosexuals on gay pride day. Another stated that the patriotic flag is like the Nazi flag, or graffiti, or a Mickey Mouse flag.
The display of symbols traditionally has been viewed as an aspect of free speech and is thus protected by the First Amendment. But apparently in New York State, not only is the private ownership of guns considered tantamount to an act of violence but free speech is viewed with disdain.(MORE)


Anti-Gun Mayor Arrested For Attempting To Force 20-Year-Old Into Gay Sex At Gunpoint

April 10, 2013

Hypocritical Dipstick Alert: Mayor Against Guns Shoots At 20yr. Old Male He Tried To Rape – ClashDaily

In a very strange and sad story developing out of Pennsylvania, one of Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” members has found himself in jail. James Schiliro, mayor of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, was arrested this past Thursday for official oppression, reckless endangerment, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, and furnishing a minor with alcohol.
.

Schiliro ordered a local policemen to bring him a 20-year-old male to his home. At which point Schiliro allegedly served the minor alcohol and tried to have sex with him. When the minor refused, Schiliro apparently retrieved multiple handguns, where he then proceeded to fire one of them in the minors direction as a form of intimidation.
.

.
Schiliro was released on bail and states he will be fighting the charges.
Let him know what you think: mayor_jds@marcushookboro.com
Click HERE For Rest Of Story


#WashingtonState: Lawmakers “Accidentally” Legalize Warrantless Invasion Of #Gun Owners’ Homes.

February 23, 2013

Lawmakers “Accidentally” Legalize Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners’ Homes.
(WesternJournalism).

Lawmakers in Washington State have accidentally written a bill permitting police to invade private homes for the purpose of confiscating “illegal” guns and accessories, such as magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

According to Senate Bill 5737, introduced on February 13th by Democrat State Senators Murray, Kohl-Welles, and Kline, no one may possess an “assault weapon” or the combination of a semi-automatic pistol or rifle capable of using a detachable magazine AND any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammo.
Happily, however, you ARE allowed to possess an UNLOADED assault weapon “…for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency of the state.” (Pg. 6)
Naturally, the statute would NOT apply to police, members of law enforcement in the state, or to federal authorities; in short, the oft-referred to “only ones.” That is, the only ones, the political ruling class tells us, who can be trusted with firearms. However, if one happens to own an “assault weapon” prior to the effective date of the legislation, he may keep it IF he agrees to “safely and securely store the assault weapon.” And by the way, “THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY MAY, NO MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR, CONDUCT AN INSPECTION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE…” Not surprisingly, safe and secure storage is not defined in the bill. (Pg. 7) Also not surprisingly, this language was quickly deleted from the bill immediately upon lawmakers learning of the public outrage their little foray into dictatorship had spawned.
Yet, in order to provide cover for the bill’s sponsors and fellow liberals, duplicitous “journalist” Danny Westneat is hoping to sell Washington gun owners on the laughable story that the whole thing was just an unfortunate mistake! According to Westneat, one of the bill’s sponsors, Democrat Adam Kline “…did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.” Naturally, ALL prospective laws should be written without paying much attention to what’s in them! And the PRIME sponsor, Democrat Ed Murray, admitted that the language was “probably unconstitutional.” “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” allowed the munificent liberal.
PROBABLY unconstitutional? Here is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

And by the way, MR. Murray, how were your “only ones” to know which homes to enter and search? Could it be that mandatory, statewide gun registration was to become the next in your series of “common sense” gun laws?
But even with the Orwellian language now removed, SB 5737 is an affront to the God-given rights of the American people. After all, the bill still states that, should one inherit an “assault weapon,” he must either dispose of it by allowing law enforcement to confiscate it or permanently disable it. It is government literally authorizing the theft or destruction of personal property. Anyone who objects will be subject to one year in prison.
As for the claim by the bill’s authors that it was a mistake, a misstep?It’s a “misstep” because they said what they want to do. They gave away what their plan is.” The truth is, “it’s not a misstep, it’s the next step.”Read the full story here.


Gandhi Championed Right to Bear Arms

February 19, 2013
(Kushagra Aniket)
At a time when President Obama has announced severe gun control proposals, it might come as a surprise to note that Mahatma Gandhi, one of the greatest champions of non-violence and someone whom the president counts among his personal inspirations, actively campaigned for the right to bear arms during the Indian freedom struggle.
Today it is often argued that a large part of the purpose behind the Second Amendment—protection against the prospect of government tyranny—is unjustified or irrelevant. But this argument is strikingly similar to the one advanced by the British colonialists who presented themselves as the redeemers of their colonial dominions and claimed that their rule was the best and most enlightened form of government in the world. History tells us that they were wrong.
It was then that Gandhi realized that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right of free people because despite constitutional provisions and non-violent methods of protest, it sometimes becomes necessary to resist tyranny with force. He made it a part of his program first in South Africa and later in India—both under British rule.
During World War I, Gandhi called for a repeal of the unpopular Indian Arms Act of 1878 that granted the government extensive powers to restrict the possession of arms. In his autobiography, Gandhi condemned this act in the strongest of words: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

…In the light of the Indian experience with guns, it is also important to note that the right to bear arms has been associated with struggles for independence from tyrannical rule around the world. This constitutional right not only has enormous practical significance for self-defense but it also performs a profoundly symbolic function of reflecting the tenacity and resilience that go into the formation of a strong and free citizenry.


#GunControl? 3D Printer Projects – #Gun Parts – AR Bullet Magazine

February 16, 2013
Gun PartsDefDist has created a 3D-printed 30-round AR magazine, ExtremeTech reported. The magazine was printed out on an Objet Connex26 using transparent VeroClear printing material in order to show the magazine’s round count and feeding action. DefDist noted that the final printed product wasn’t perfect, as “practically every component” had to be shaved at least once. The team managed one trial that shot about five rounds before failure — not so bad for a first run.(Image)(pcmag.com)
of course we will be told that gun control is something that will be enforceable… the bad guys wouldn’t download anything from the internet… would they?

Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment

February 12, 2013
(The Third Amendment) (Amendment III) to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It was introduced on September 5, 1789, and then three quarters of the states ratified this as well as 9 other amendments on December 15, 1791. It prohibits, in peacetime or wartime, the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner’s consent. The Third Amendment makes a great case for more guns, and more modern weapons. If a soldier demands to be quartered in your home, how do you respond?To uphold the Third Amendment requires enforcement. To enforce your private property rights you will need some firepower. That’s where your right to bear arms comes into play. For if a soldier demands to be quartered, your objection must have teeth. At such time, a semi-automatic or automatic weapon makes a good deterrent. It will be an unwise soldier who demands rather than requests quartering in that house. Even if you “can’t” win against a soldier, weaponry betters your odds. A soldier who won’t take “no” for an answer will likely respect the sound of a person who can hold the same gun as a soldier. The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.”

the "our forefathers could not have possibly foreseen the destructive potential of future weapons" argument

January 22, 2013
(Thinker)At the time of the Revolutionary War, the American long rifle, one of the earliest guns to stabilize a projectile with a rifled bore, had really only come into its own a half century before, although its first use was in the very early 1700s.  Achieving a longer range than the usual infantry-issue musket of the day, the American long rifle was used to harass British troops during their retreat through New Jersey, assured more favorable conditions for the Continental Army during the Battle of Saratoga, and proved decisive during the Battle of Cowpens, when Morgan’s Riflemen fired three volleys before the British muskets came within range.  Morgan and his sharpshooters then undertook a planned retreat to another position and fired another three volleys.  By the time Morgan’s company joined the main force, the British were disheartened by their losses and inability to respond and quickly fell into retreat.

(But the Americans weren’t the only ones inventing and adapting.)