Doc's Talk: Obama Gun Ban - Not If We Can Help It!

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Obama Gun Ban - Not If We Can Help It!

U.S. Army Major General Paul Vallely (Ret.), John Barnhart and Annie Hamilton

According to George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights, we are about to be enslaved, as he said, ‘What is the militia? It is the whole person. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. According to Soviet Communist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin “one person with a gun can control one hundred without one.” The writing has been on the wall and hard-working, law-abiding Americans are MUCH less inclined to tolerate the diabolical legislation and hypocritical statements pouring out of the White House in record numbers. We’re lectured constantly about accountability and ‘reform’ from people who refuse to be accountable and have offered nothing except for out of control government spending, huge ridiculous programs for people who don’t contribute a dime, weak foreign policy and shady cabinet appointments.

These same individuals have been seeking excuses, reasons and methods in which to strip us of our constitutional rights, including those encapsulated by the second amendment. The Right to bear arms!

Why?

Because if the people have no access to guns, they have no way to fight the Federal Government when it decides to strip any or all of the people’s rights afforded by the First Amendment. Those being the right to freedom of the press, free speech, the right to assemble, freedom of religion and the right to redress grievances.

Anyone capable of reading understands that throughout history, whenever economies suffer crime rises. This, coupled with the crisis along the Mexican/U.S. Border has easily exacerbated the current argument into a full blown push for gun control. (i.e., the false claim that 90 % of weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.) The fact is, the statistic isn’t 90 %, and it’s much closer to 17 % of guns used in Mexican crimes which were traced to the United States. Liberals don’t want to talk about this, it doesn’t serve their purpose.

Brad O’Leary, author of the best seller “The Audacity of Deceit, Barack Obama’s War on American Values” predicted word for word, line for line the sequence that Barack Obama would follow to ban the private ownership of weapons as much as possible in the hope of the eventual abolishment of the Second Amendment completely. The entire second chapter is devoted to the subject and includes Barack Obama’s “yes” answers regarding questions about the ban of handguns, assault weapons and mandatory background checks before anyone can purchase any kind of a gun. Let’s not forget that Obama was also on the board of The Joyce Foundation, another George Soros sponsored Socialist entity which is involved in the lobbying for ridiculous standards on environmental, educational and of course gun ownership issues.

Since the election the Obama Administration has jumped right onto the gun control bandwagon, demanding reform, putting an end to unregistered gun sales at gun shows, requiring huge million dollar insurance policies on the owners for weapons, stricter oversights and the labeling of bullets, and even the suggestion that the U.S. adopt U.N. hand gun regulations including a potential ban.

In short, the former Senator who could only be bothered to show up to vote ‘present’ more than any other in history (when he showed up or wasn’t too late to vote at all) is going to try to make it nearly impossible to afford gun ownership in America.

Don’t believe it? Read the proposed over reaching and Second amendment violating legislation proposed in H.R. 45 otherwise known as Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

In response, Montana has raised up in protest, electing instead to enforce the right to operate individually as a State, free of federal gun legislation. Their protest, offered through House Bill 246, aims to exempt firearms, weapons components and ammunition manufactured within the state of Montana and housed in Montana, from all federal gun laws. As Montana currently has very few gun laws, this would allow certain gun owners to circumvent the registration process, background checks and licensing requirements almost entirely.

Drafted in part by the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the goal is to keep ‘big government’ out of Montana gun laws. As the bill stands, it flew through the legislature and has ended up in the hands of Governor Brian Schweitzer who has yet to offer his official position. Local law enforcement are still reserving their comments as they ‘don’t make laws, they simply enforce them’ stated local ATF officials.

This action in Montana has followed months of speculation about the Obama Administration’s plan for new, stringent gun control, sparking high gun and ammunition sales throughout the State. Of course the reality is that every gun owner, be they owners for the sake of recreation, collecting or home defense is not completely aware of Obama’s “master plan” regarding gun ownership, but they should be. They need to be informed and active in opposition to any restrictions regarding gun ownership and the Second Amendment.

Keep in mind, it’s not like going around Congress to enforce state law hasn’t been done before! In 2005, California did it to keep the feds out of the medicinal marijuana issue and it’s mostly been a highly successful endeavor for farmers, physicians and users alike. Add to that the fact that in late 2008, were it not for the efforts of one courageous citizen, his amazing lawyer and the vote of one single Supreme Court Justice the Washington, DC gun ban would be upheld as constitutional giving Obama a leg up before he had ever taken office.

Texas, the Lone Star State, is hot on Montana’s heels, as Governor Perry announced his support last week for a non-binding resolution currently in consideration in the Texas House, stating the feds have overstepped their authority under the constitution and is infringing on the rights of the people as stated by the 10th amendment. Although it’s more of a symbolic act, if the resolution passes, Texas won’t be obligated to return federal money or ignore conditions imposed upon it by Congress but it will enable State officials to tell Congress to stay out of State affairs.

The enforcement of gun laws will likely be a huge part of that plan as folks are tired of overbearing bureaucrats and their anti-gun agenda. The truth is that the right to own a gun is protected for reasons rooted in our very history. Thomas Jefferson said, ‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Jefferson’s words from 200 years ago still ring true, and to prove that they are still accurate and meaningful today let’s review the words of a modern era President, President Wilson Reagan.

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”

“Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate isn’t due as much as anything to the criminal’s instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection.”

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.”

GUN OWNERS ACROSS AMERICA - STAND UP!

Thank you for reading American Daily Review - news, politics and conservative commentary without compromise

Article originally appeared on American Daily Review (http://www.americandailyreview.com/).

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk