second amendment

4 Reasons Why Training To Become A Gunsmith Is A Top-Notch Idea

4 Reasons Why Training To Become A Gunsmith Is A Top-Notch Idea

By Jay Chambers •

Have you felt the need to hold your tongue as the anti-gun conversations of today’s poorly informed politics steal center stage in every possible social setting? If you’re like most gun hobbyists, you’re probably there right now.

We’ve watched our sport be labeled as dangerous, villainous, and worthless by people who have never set foot in the gun section of a sporting good store, let alone visited a range or actually handled a weapon.

We know the effective safety measures and attention to detail practiced at every range, and we know the level of care that goes into everything we do. Too bad anti-gun Americans don’t think they should listen to “gun nuts.”

So here’s a Call to Arms for you:

Become a gunsmith.

Really! Think about it. Younger Americans are being brainwashed into the 4-year university track, so the number of gunsmiths around dwindles as they retire. There is absolutely a job open for you.

Plus, what would scare the left more: a “gun nut,” or a passionate and professionally trained gunsmith?

It isn’t the most glamorous profession, with the average gunsmith in the US making $36k per year, but you can turn your passion into a business and spend your time doing what you like, with people who think like you.

The recruiting webpages for the gunsmith programs at various trade schools will prattle off twenty or more reasons to become a gunsmith, and they’re not wrong. There are tons of great arguments for entering the profession.

These lists can really be streamlined into four compelling categories, so, without further ado, here they are.

Here are the top 4 reasons to become a Gunsmith

  1. You’ll Learn a Trade

Gunsmiths do not require four-year degrees or graduate school. Trade schools have been woefully underrated recently, which reflects in the market.

You can learn the trade in a short-term class (as little as two weeks) or more traditionally scheduled courses at local community colleges and trade schools.

Then…

You’ll get to contribute actual, valuable skills to the market with your actual hands. Maybe you’re already doing this in your current profession, but wouldn’t it be better to channel your expertise into your favorite hobby?

Plus, most courses emphasize hands-on learning, so you’ll improve your shot even before you finish training as you learn the intricacies of the weapons you build, repair, and ultimately use.

  1. Widely Applicable Skills

If you spend any amount of time at the range, out hunting, or at gun shows… In short, within “gun culture,” you probably know your way around some of the mechanical aspects of guns.

By formally learning the gunsmith trade, you’ll pick up machining, drawing, geometry, and physics just by sheer volume of practice. Rest assured, if this gunsmith thing isn’t full-time, there will be no shortage of jobs begging for someone with a brain like yours.

And here’s the silver lining to running a gunsmith business:

Every day, when you’re not working on guns, you’ll be working with customers. Most likely, they’ll be better educated in guns than your average citizen. The fact remains that you’ll be combining customer service politeness with the nuts and bolts of guns and shooting on a daily basis.

Which means…

Your gunsmith business will turn you into an eloquent and powerful ally for the Second Amendment, and you’ll be able to turn around those infuriatingly misinformed anti-gun conversations like a pro (because you are literally a pro).

  1. Keep Up Your Hobby and Improve Your Shot

So you don’t get to spend every day out shooting, but you’ll finally have significant overlap between your job and your passion.

It goes without saying that knowing how to repair, modify, build, and rebuild guns will get you the best shot, but how will you know that your repair or rebuild worked?

You have to test it, of course!

As you fill orders or complete your own projects, you’ll get real-time feedback by testing your handiwork. And it’s probable that you’ll have to test a wide range of builds and calibers. With that, you not only strengthen your gunsmith talents but your skills as a shooter.

Have you seen those people who are able to calm nervous horses quickly? They’re so experienced and have such time-tested intuition that they can really get in the animals’ heads and ultimately control them. That’ll be you, but with guns.

  1. Improve Gun Culture

For lack of a less liberalized term that still encompasses the whole sphere, that’s what it is. By this, I mean you’ll improve guns for the people that use them, and you’ll put more knowledge on the playing board in the fight to protect the Second Amendment against many Americans’ misguided attempts to make the country safer by stigmatizing guns.

First and foremost, your job as a gunsmith is to create a safe and reliable product. The integrity of that imperative should attract any gun hobbyist, especially as the market is flooded with cheaply manufactured, mass-produced, and ultimately faulty firearms at a rate unlike any other time in history (at the same time as smiths of any type are facing mass extinction rates). We need skilled, local gunsmiths to ensure the quality of our guns and improve them beyond cookie cutter factory offerings.

As you learn about working on guns and with their owners, you’re bound to pick up more knowledge than you ever thought possible sitting in trade school (or sitting here reading this). It’ll only be natural that you pass along that knowledge, in everyday conversation or even by teaching aspiring gunsmiths the fun of building or repairing firearms and scopes like this model.

By learning to become a gunsmith, you’ll turn your hobby into a business, and you’ll have the knowledge to debunk rampant anti-gun claims. As a gunsmith, you will be able to exercise and protect the Second Amendment with professional expertise.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY, 1 comment
Public Apathy and the Erosion of our Liberties

Public Apathy and the Erosion of our Liberties

By Erik Rush •

Last week in this space, primarily citing firearms laws and the nascent surveillance state in America, I criticized some on both the right and the left for their tendency to accept an inordinate degree of government intervention in certain areas when it served their particular ideology, and Americans’ overall penchant for denial with regard to emerging government tyranny. Finally, I asserted that if we are to survive as a free nation – possibly even restoring some of the rights that have been usurped or diluted by our government – then we are going to have to become far more scrupulous with regard to our vigilance against tyranny, as well as becoming better informed as to what our constitutional rights actually are.

Despite much relief on the part of conservative and libertarian types following the election of Donald Trump and his proclivity for respecting constitutional law in more areas than most of his predecessors in recent memory, we must be (or become) aware that we are still in a fight for our lives, constitutionally-speaking, and that progressivism is very much alive and well in America.

Today I would like to challenge Americans’ tendency to summarily accept the doctrines of institutional orthodoxies, such as certain laws and conventions. There are many dangers associated with such behavior; an extreme example might be German citizens in the 1940s who had nothing in particular against Jews, but who turned their Jewish neighbors in to the Gestapo simply because it was “the law of the land.” When people become slaves to the doctrines of institutional orthodoxies, there is a very real danger of their losing their humanity.

American citizens have been living in a sort of retrogressive groove in this sense for at least a century, as they accept or ignore the myriad laws and dictates of regulatory agencies which chip away their individual liberties.

There are any number of laws and conventions I might use to illustrate this, but some will resonate more readily than others either due to their gravity, or because they have come to light in the recent past.

Firearms laws are far and away among the most dangerous of these. I have repeatedly cited the fact that even those gun control measures which most Americans deem “reasonable” have severely eroded our Second Amendment rights, as well as often containing insidious “poison pills” therein which restrict Americans’ right to keep and bear arms far more than the ostensible intention sold to the public at the time of their implementation. I have pointed out that federal law bars many people who have been convicted of nonviolent crimes as well as people who have been institutionalized for any mental issues, voluntarily or involuntarily (a woman’s nervous breakdown after a rape, for example), from ever owning or possessing firearms or ammunition. Look it up.

A “controversial” sheriff recently declared that the Second Amendment is the only concealed carry permit that any citizen needs, and in fact there are twelve states in which the law reflects this. And then there are the Oath Keepers, a constitutionally-conscious organization of law enforcement personnel which is active in every state in the Union; some of its members will refrain from arresting individuals whom they discover carrying concealed firearms without a permit despite the law, unless they happen to have outstanding warrants or something of that nature.

A little-known fact is that the first gun control laws in America had their roots in racist practices, as Oath Keepers Board of Directors member Gregg McWhirter points out in his article “Gun Control is Racism.”

Among the dangerous conventions which Americans tend to “let slide” is that of the inequality in application of the law when it comes to those in power. As I illustrated many times here during the presidency of Barack Obama, there were many in the higher echelons of our national government who were aware that Obama’s birth certificate (the one released on the White House website in April 2011) was created from whole digital cloth. I ascertained this within a half hour after downloading the document myself. This is a crime under federal law as regards individuals employing such information in order to attain high office. Yet, the matter was never brought to light by anyone in government, Republican or Democrat.

There’s also a crime on the books called Misprision of felony (18 U.S. Code § 4), which states that anyone possessing knowledge of a felony, and who conceals that fact, is committing a felony. Thus, there are possibly dozens of high-ranking government officials and lawmakers past and present who skated on this issue, whereas you or I would have been doing the perp walk.
Then, there is the recent sexual harassment scandal that escalated into revelations concerning the fact that taxpayers have been funding hush money payments to the victims of sexual harassment at the hands of members of Congress for years. Finally, there are the plethora of illegal and unethical activities in which the Hillary Clinton campaign engaged in torpedoing Bernie Sanders’s bid for the Democratic nomination and attempting to defeat Donald Trump.

I could go on and on, but these are just a (very) few of the literally innumerable examples of illegality and misfeasance for which most corporate chieftains – and certainly average citizens – would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This dangerous and increasingly employed double standard will continue to be the status quo until public outrage, similar to that which got Donald Trump elected, is applied to the erosion of our liberties.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Clarifying the Objectives of Gun Grabbers

Clarifying the Objectives of Gun Grabbers

By David Risselada •

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

For years the idea of an Article V convention of the states has been pushed by many conservatives as a way to reign in federal spending and an out of control federal government. An Article V convention is a way to propose new amendments to the constitution, a provision added by our founders as a way to ensure the people have the ability to take control of their governing process. Any new amendments, once proposed, must then be ratified by three fourths of the states legislatures in order to become the law of the land. Conservatives argue, that because Republicans control the majority of the state legislatures, precious liberties protected by the constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms, would be in no danger. This has proven to be false as The New American Magazine is reporting that a “clarification” of the Second Amendments meaning is on the agenda should an Article V convention take place.

What does it mean to clarify the Second Amendments meaning? Well, many gun control proponents point out, as The New American highlights, that the Second Amendment was written at a time when only muskets and other arms of less lethal ability existed. Their arguments would of course suggest that the founders had no idea what direction technology would go and what type of arms would then be available to the public. On the other hand, if a pro-Second Amendment majority is present at the convention, clarifying the right to keep and bear arms could in deed do just that. They could re-affirm that an armed public is the best way to ensure the security of a free state. This however, in our politically charged climate of fear and hysteria against guns, is not likely.

Setting these idle arguments aside there are more serious threats that an Article V convention poses to the Second Amendment. One of these threats is the fact that gun control, and the disarming of America has been written into public law since 1961. Signed by President Kennedy, PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act sets in motion the process in which America’s military will be systematically reduced, disarmed and subverted to the authority of a world army headed by The United Nations. According to Bernadine Smith of libertygunrights.com, the final stages of this plan would be the elimination of national control of our armed services, which in turn would subvert our national sovereignty, and the total and complete disarming of the American people.

The American public seems blissfully unaware that the past several decades have brought us a massive, systematic reduction in the size of our military and the closure of many bases nationwide.

Also, the process for turning over command of the U.S. military to the United Nations started nearly two decades before with the passing of the United Nations Participation Act. This act put the power of committing U.S. forces to conflicts overseas in the hands of the U.N. Security Council as opposed to the U.S. congress, who incidentally constitutionally speaking, has the sole authority to declare war. Since the Korean war, all conflicts involving U.S. forces have been directed by the United Nations Security Council.

State Department Publication 7277  states as one of it’s goals the total and complete disarmament of military forces except for that which is necessary to maintain internal order and for contributions to a United Nations peace keeping force. This essentially means that only a small body of armed forces operating under the jurisdiction of the United Nations would exist for the purpose of enforcing principles set forth by a world governing body.

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 

What agreements are this publication referencing and what disarmament obligations is the United States expected to be held to? The United Nations Program of Action on Small Arms is one such agreement. Many may argue that as of now this agreement has no bearing on U.S. law. Considering the harsh political climate and the constant efforts to pass gun control laws it is important that the American public at least understand what this agreement entails. For example, section II explicitly states that where they do not yet exist, laws should be passed criminalizing the illicit manufacture, transfer and possession of small arms. What does illicit mean? Does that mean the three pound drop  trigger in your semi-automatic rifle? It can mean anything that gives them the necessary wording to criminalize gun ownership in America.

II.  Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects

(Take note that the current gun control bill proposed by Republican Carlos Curbelo is so vaguely worded it could outlaw the manufacture of almost anything that enhances a semi-auto’s performance.)

Another agreement is the U.N Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed illegally by Former Secretary of State John Kerry. While this treaty has not been ratified it is hard to argue that our government is not working to accomplish the objectives set forth within its text.
One particular aspect of this treaty that readers should take note of is Article 16 titled simply, International Assistance. To put it bluntly, this section establishes a trust fund of sorts, and other means of assistance, which can be used to assist nations that have signed into forcing others into compliance. While this treaty begins with words that suggest the U.N. will respect the sovereignty of nation states, other material provided in this article shows that the ultimate objective is in fact completes disarmament of the public. Proof of this being the final objective is demonstrated every time the push for gun control returns in response to a national tragedy.
Bernadine Smith, at sweetliberty.org, claims that the government will use the Article V Convention process to introduce a new constitution which will be communistic in structure and more in line with the principles of the U.N. Charter than the U.S. Constitution. This constitution exists and it explicitly denies the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of any type except for those serving in the capacity of a U.N. peacekeeping force Clarifying the used for keeping internal order. This constitution can be read here.
 
With all of this being said it is imperative, should an Article V convention take place, that the people, along with pro-Second Amendment advocates pay close attention to its proceedings. There is a reason that America is constantly being discredited and referred to as a racist, oppressive nation. They want the general public confused and spiritually defeated to the point they will accept this new socialist constitution as an alternative to a system of governance they have been taught has failed. Be weary America. Allow me to leave with one more quote.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” 

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY, 0 comments
Women and Guns: How The Left Gets It Wrong

Women and Guns: How The Left Gets It Wrong

by Sam Bocetta •

The left are jubilant this week, after a report by the Violence Policy Center claimed that women were a hundred times more likely to be killed by someone with a gun than to use one in self-defense. This skewed statistic has been reported in many “mainstream” media outlets over the past few weeks, and taken out of context it is very misleading.

First, people are more likely to be killed by guns than to use one in self-defense, for the simple reason that the number of people who regularly carry weapons is still quite small. Leaving that aside, though, even The Nation admits that the study did not count women who did not die because they defended themselves with a firearm.

Perhaps most damning, though, is the hypocrisy shown by the left when it comes to the safety of women. Even in an age when self-defense classes for women are regarded as both necessary and empowering, the left’s squeamishness about guns means they are not able to take the next step, and sensibly recommend that women carry a self-defense weapon.

The Changing Demographics Of Gun Ownership

It seems that many women have realized this for themselves, though, and many more women are now choosing to carry a firearm.  There are now many groups that aim to give women a safe space to train with guns, and the huge expansion of sites like The Well Armed Woman over the last two years is a sign of a strong community.

Perhaps the only unfortunate outcome of gun activists’ defense of our Second Amendment rights is that it actually makes it pretty hard to get reliable numbers on the number of people who own weapons. For this, we have to rely on the Pew Research Center’s annual survey.

This shows that there is still a large disparity between the number of men and women who own guns. 37% of men say that they personally own a gun, in comparison to just 12% of women. That said, if we look a little closer at the numbers, a different picture emerges. Almost a third of women report that they live in a household with a gun, even if they do not personally own one. Much circumstantial evidence points to the fact that these women actually use guns a lot.

Another interesting facet of female gun ownership is that women tend to own guns for different reasons than men. In particular, research suggests that 27% of women own a gun only for self-defense, as opposed to just 8% of men who state that this is the only reason they have a weapon.

Guns For Girls

Two groups stand to benefit from this shift – gun manufacturers, and activist organizations like the NRA. The latter have recently expanded their “NRA Women” program, and they’ve hired a female spokesperson, Dana Loesch. The group have long stressed the need for women to protect themselves, both with firearms and other means, through their Women’s Leadership Forum.

For gun manufacturers, the increase in female attention could be an opportunity to offset some of the effects of the Trump Slump – a general downturn in guns sales since the last election.  Southwick associates, a market research firm who specialize in the hunting industry, have told adage that women account for 46.8% of the 24 million Americans who do not currently own a gun, but are interested in doing so. In order to tempt these new gun owners, several manufacturers are producing handguns specifically aimed at women.

The Hypocrisy Of The Left

Like I said above, the news that hundreds of women are killed each year was widely celebrated on the left, because they think it proves their point – that guns kills people. What they seemingly fail to realize is that for many women, owning a gun is a necessary part of self-defense, and that it is likely that more women would die if they were not armed.

These facts are conveniently left out of the statistics published this week. Of course, this fits into a much wider pattern, in which the left continually warps the numbers in order to justify increasing gun restriction. Half the time, those arguing for tighter gun laws claim to have naively overlooked the larger, more complex picture, but I don’t for a second believe that they are that stupid: rather, this ongoing misrepresentation of the truth about guns is a willing blindness on the part of those who wish to ban guns outright.

Sam Bocetta is a retired contractor who worked for over 35 years as an engineer specializing in cyber warfare and Navy computer systems. Past projects include the development of EWTR systems, Antifragile EW project, and development of Chaff countermeasures. Sam now teaches at Algonquin Community College in Ottawa, Canada as a part time engineering professor.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY, 0 comments
Las Vegas and the Left’s Dangerous Amorality

Las Vegas and the Left’s Dangerous Amorality

By Erik Rush •

One of the first admonitions that came from cooler heads in the hours following Stephen Paddock’s deadly shooting rampage at a country music festival in Las Vegas last Sunday night was a recommendation that those analyzing the incident refrain from politicizing the tragedy. It didn’t take long however, for liberal politicos (including those in the press) to cast aside this counsel in favor of wholesale politicization of the shootings.
My thinking on the matter is that considering the magnitude and nature of the tragedy, the avoidance of politicizing same would be prudent unless the perpetrator himself was attempting to make a some sort of political statement in carrying out the assault, but this has not been reliably established.

As one may have noticed, conspiracy theories concerning Paddock’s rampage abound. There have been as yet unsubstantiated reports that Paddock converted to a radical form of Islam at some point, as well as other reports of multiple shooters and the like. While lack of an apparent motive and information in general as regards Mr. Paddock could speak volumes, it could simply be indicative of measures he took to keep his life ̶ and subsequently, his intention to kill a lot of people ̶ a secret.

Although it would behoove anyone seeking the truth to take heed of the word “unsubstantiated” as regards some of the more controversial reports, it would also be wise to take a couple of other items into consideration: One, it’s been established that clandestine groups both inside and outside of government have been known to cultivate unbalanced individuals and fanatics to carry out such attacks as instruments of their agenda advancement. The second is that the left is operating under extreme duress, as I have indicated in this space many times since Donald Trump’s election; this has already given rise to all manner of desperate action on the part of the left.

On Monday night, late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel made several false statements about gun laws, presumably to precipitate efforts on the part of Washington lawmakers to impose increased gun control measures. Hillary Clinton offered up some truly embarrassing statements relating to firearms and firearms laws, and claimed that the availability of firearms was some sort of dark conservative-Republican- National Rifle Association (NRA) conspiracy. She also criticized a “slow and creaky” infrastructure for firearms background checks.

The ever-mouthy, squat Hollywood goblin Lena Dunham said on social media that there was “no way not to politicize” the incident, and that Paddock’s shooting orgy was “about gender & race as well as access to guns.” I won’t even attempt to unravel that bit of logic.

NBC’s Tom Brokaw, instead of reporting the news, admonished citizens to organize against the NRA. Actress and perennial moron Alyssa Milano tweeted a link to “a list of the members of the House and Senate, and their twitter handles, that have taken money from the NRA.” A large and lively bunch of Hollywood ignoramuses weighed in with similar advice vis-à-vis the NRA, and a Drexel University professor blamed the shootings on a supposed narrative of white victimization advanced by ̶ you guessed it ̶ President Trump and his surrogates.

I’m actually somewhat surprised that country music itself hasn’t been cited by the left as a catalyst for this sort of violence, but I suppose there’s still time for that.

Let’s not mince words here: Those on the left who are driving the exploitation of the Las Vegas massacre to advance gun control are not interested in measures that might reduce gun violence, because no manner of precautions are capable of deterring a determined perpetrator with a gun ̶ or a knife, a bomb, or any other weapon one might obtain or devise. They are interested in neutralizing the Second Amendment and disarming the American people. Hillary Clinton and her ilk would probably adore a nationwide ban on firearms and electronic gunpowder sniffers in every home (wherein a “hot” reading would result in a visit from the local SWAT team), all to ensure our safety, of course.

Potential conspiracies and the progressive wet dream of an unarmed populace aside, my observation this week speaks to the recurring theme that the true believers among liberals (as opposed to the deluded, who simply lack epistemic reference for their beliefs) have become dangerously amoral people. One of the most offensive yet telling reactions to the Las Vegas shootings came from Hayley Geftman-Gold, a CBS senior counsel who said on Facebook that she was “not even sympathetic [to the shooting victims because] country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

Geftman-Gold was quickly sacked by CBS, but she wasn’t the only person on the left to publicly articulate that correlation. She was however, the only one audacious enough to suggest that the killed and injured country music fans ̶ being Republican gun-toters and by logical extension, likely Trump supporters ̶ had it coming.

I would submit that this level of callousness and inhumanity has become commonplace among the aforementioned liberal true believers. Liberal politicos and the press have worked tirelessly to dehumanize their political opponents and, while even many conservatives might disbelieve, I think that this is in preparation for some truly draconian social engineering measures in future. These people are the sort who would turn their neighbors in to police state authorities, even if they knew that in so doing they would consign said neighbors to enslavement, torture, and death in concentration camps.

The response of those on the left to the Las Vegas shootings illustrate once more that they should be regarded as our mortal enemies, as opposed to fellow citizens with a somewhat divergent political viewpoint.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
Obama’s Gun Orders: Sugar-Coated Tyranny

Obama’s Gun Orders: Sugar-Coated Tyranny

A recent Gallup poll featured “Guns and gun control” as 19th on a list of most important problems in the eyes of the American people.

“Government” was the first on the same list. Thus, it should say something to the American people when “guns and gun control” is so overwhelmingly important to “government.”

Before dismantling arguments for the new executive actions announced this week by Barack Hussein Obama relative to firearms, I will briefly reiterate my take on gun control as viewed through the lens of the Second Amendment, this being the only proper criterion for evaluating same: Individuals should be held civilly and/or criminally liable for damage done to persons or property with firearms in their possession in the same manner they might be held civilly and/or criminally liable for damage done with a gardening implement in their possession. Any further restriction – or infringement – upon the possession of firearms or ammunition is unlawful – period.

This would likely apply to over 99 percent of the federal, state, and local firearms statutes on the books in this country. Most of these were instituted by progressives over the last 100 years, and were allowed to stand due to ignorance of the citizenry with regard to the law.

My assessment may appear outrageous (or at least outlandish) to some, but should be no surprise to my regular readers. Simply put: the government from whose potential tyranny the Second Amendment was passed to protect Americans doesn’t get to impose restrictions on that law, as expressly indicated in the verbiage of the Amendment itself.

Over the holiday weekend (actually, through two holiday weekends and the week in between), there was a great deal of anticipation and anxiety as to what firearms-related executive actions in the new year promised by Obama might look like.

Last Friday Obama, who has been called “The Greatest Gun Salesman in American History,” defaulted to the tactic of division, admonishing Americans to “stand up” to groups such as the National Rifle Association. On Monday, Obama vowed to press ahead with new executive actions on gun control after meeting with top law enforcement officials, and asserted that he has the legal authority to do so (this is reminiscent of other areas wherein Obama governed by decree after declaring that he possessed the legal authority to govern by decree).

Finally came the press conference on Tuesday, where Obama announced the new executive actions. Flanked by a cross section of generic Americans whose loved ones had allegedly been victims of gun violence, Obama announced measures requiring background checks on firearms sales at gun shows, flea markets, on websites, and for parties “in the business” of selling firearms.

Offhandedly referencing the Constitution as “the paper” upon which the Second Amendment was recorded (since actually articulating the word “Constitution” might cause him to burst into flame), and reinforcing the necessity for his action with lie after lie concerning the prevalence of gun violence in the U.S., Obama spun legitimacy for these new decrees out of whole cloth.

One of the bugbears of liberal gun control advocates has been gun shows, where private citizens are able to buy and sell firearms without the requirement of background checks. Another sticking point has been online gun sales, which the administration has alleged allows people to circumvent background checks.
This is patently false. As it stands now, for online firearms transactions, firearms must be shipped from one Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer to another, whether the sale is between private citizens or involving an online gun dealer and a private citizen. The receiving dealer is required to conduct a background check on the buyer, even though the dealer did not originate the sale (Firearms dealers typically charge a modest handling fee for this service).

Leaving aside my personal disdain for firearms laws in general, any online firearms transfer not completed in this manner is illegal.

The point is that the “online sales loophole” that the federal government decries doesn’t even exist.

In 2013, when activist legislators in New York, Colorado and Maryland passed draconian gun control measures that had been aggressively advanced by the Obama administration and its surrogates (like former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg), 340 sheriffs in those states refused to enforce the new laws. Some of the sheriffs filed suit against their legislatures, and in Colorado, the laws in question resulted in the successful recall of once-powerful liberal state legislators.

Obama’s pretext for proposing more gun control measures has been the recent spate of domestic acts of terrorism and spree killings involving firearms. None of these could have been prevented by any conceivable firearms legislation, but leftists aren’t prone to confuse such issues with facts.

In large, liberal-controlled American cities, the status quo of law-abiding citizens being at the mercy of armed criminals due to onerous firearms laws is well-known. Controlling governments and socialist ideologues like Obama desire an unarmed populace because such a populace is incapable of armed resistance to tyranny; it’s that simple. The fatalities and injuries among individuals who fall prey to armed criminals is a necessary sacrifice in the minds of these hypocrites who espouse compassion and a desire to protect citizens.

With regard to those unarmed Americans who will be maimed or killed the next time Islamists execute a terrorist attack employing firearms, in Obama’s putrefactive, twisted mind, the victims will deserve it for partaking in the fruits of America’s serial pillaging of undeveloped nations and oppression of the little brown people of the world.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments

Sheriff warns of second American revolution if gun confiscation laws pass

Sheriff David ClarkeMilwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke warned of a second American revolution if gun control and gun confiscation passed and said he would not enforce laws requiring confiscation in his county while speaking with Alex Jones, Infowars reported Tuesday.

“First of all, to me that would be an act of tyranny,” he said of the gun control measures currently under consideration. “So the people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.”

“The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison,” he added.

In January, Clarke issued a public safety message urging citizens to get training from a certified gun safety course so they could properly defend themselves.

“I’m Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It’s no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family,” he said in the ad.

Across the country, law enforcement officers, state legislators and firearm manufacturers have responded to attempts to pass gun confiscation laws at the federal and state level.

A growing number of gun makers have said, for example, that they would no longer do business with the State of New York after lawmakers passed strict gun control laws.

Responding to a gun confiscation bill in Missouri, a GOP state representative proposed making it a felony to introduce gun control measures.

In Washington State, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would nullify federal gun control laws in that state.

For many, the numerous gun control measures being considered have nothing to do with gun safety, and Sheriff Clarke agreed.

“This is about attacking the Second Amendment, it’s about going after the wrong crowd,” he said. According to the sheriff, much of the violence he sees is not committed by criminals using the guns lawmakers want to ban.

“Government control cannot go on as long as people have some sort of ability to say ‘hey wait just a doggone minute,'” he added. “That’s what the government fears, they don’t really fear the criminals, they support the criminals. What they fear is a law abiding person.”

Posted by Erik Rush in News

Mental Health Gun Checks? Let Obama go First

psychobarryOn Friday, the Our Dear Leader proposed two new executive actions to ostensibly make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national firearms background check system. This of course means that more and likely over-reaching, arbitrary criteria will be used to determine who will and who will not be able to legally obtain firearms – and all according to the standards of the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful State.

Treated for depression once? Former substance abuser? ADHD? Ooh – you might be dangerous… Sorry, no Second Amendment protections for you…

While Vice President Biden’s office (which announced the proposals) claimed that “nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules,” given the deceit of this administration and nascent police-state policies, we can rest assured that this claim is perfunctory, deceptive rhetoric.

Privacy rules? They have to be kidding. Their very actions deny the existence of privacy for American citizens, rules or no!

Much of the legislation recently passed by states concerning firearms was driven by the Obama machine and its surrogates (i.e., former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s nationwide initiative, for one). Last summer, prior to a vote on legislation in the state of Colorado, Joe Biden telephoned state representatives and senators and “encouraged” them to vote along the lines of the administration’s anti-Second Amendment agenda. As a result, two Colorado state senators were subsequently recalled, another resigned in the face of a recall, and many Colorado sheriffs have refused to enforce the new laws.

In the face of these new proposals, I submit that the first subject of a mental health background check ought to be the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama II. After all, this is the same man who just excoriated Republican lawmakers for “going home for the holidays while abandoning the less fortunate” as he enjoyed yet another multimillion-dollar excursion in Hawaii. Some might say that there’s something fundamentally unbalanced about such a statement.

What would a deep psychological evaluation reveal about the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama II, I wonder? And a background check – well, the Healthcare.gov system had no success in even finding enough information on him to perform such a check. Perhaps one of his many aliases might prove more revealing. As the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) dictates, he would be banned from firearm ownership if convicted of a crime for which a judge could have sentenced him to a year or more in prison.

Were we to discover that there were, for example, outstanding warrants for flight from prosecution, or past mental health evaluations that included diagnoses of psychopathy, sociopathy, or malignant narcissism, he would probably be out of the running for firearm ownership.

Of course, with all of his armed security, he probably doesn’t need a gun. Do they maintain Secret Service protection for presidents while incarcerated or committed to psychiatric institutions?

 

Posted by Erik Rush in News